Archive for Februarie, 2010
Datorita preturilor accesibile, studentii romani ”emigreaza” si ei in Spania
Din ce în ce mai mulţi tineri români, nemulțumiți de sistemul educațional românesc preferă să studieze în universitățile și școlile din Europa şi profită de prima ocazie pentru a părăsi băncile şcolii româneşti. “Emigrarea creierelor” a apărut ca o reacţie față de mecanismul destructiv al unui învățămant plin de deficiențe, lipsit de resurse şi de competitivitate și care pare să-i considere pe studenţi doar nişte plătitori docili de taxe în schimbul unei diplome.
Lăsând la o parte excepţiile pozitive din unele facultăţi din România, de unde se poate ieşi absolvent cu certitudinea că “dacă ai carte, ai parte”, în general studenţii români se pregătesc pentru o economie care nu le va da de lucru şi sunt consideraţi “vacile de muls” ale multor universităţi, care au de acoperit bugete cu cheltuieli uriaşe.
Într-o astfel de stare de degradare a învăţământului superior românesc, cei care vor să înveţe ceva şi să aibă o diplomă cu aplicare în piaţa muncii îşi îndreaptă privirile spre prestigioasele universităţi europene.
Spania este una dintre destinațiile preferate de tinerii români, atât datorită asemănării dintre cele două limbi, cât și datorită sistemului de învățământ modern și atractiv. În plus, sumele care se plătesc pentru o facultate în România sunt aproximativ aceleași ca la o facultate din Spania. Mihaela Rusu şi Vlad Panait se numără printre sutele de studenți români care studiază acum în Spania.
Aceștia au declarat pentru publicația noastră că a fi student în Spania este mult mai greu decât a fi student în România, că notele mari se obțin mult mai greu aici şi că pentru a trece un examen este necesară o pregătire serioasă pe parcursul întregului an. În ceea ce-i priveşte pe profesori, cei de aici știu să comunice mult mai deschis cu elevii, iar sistemul atractiv de predare face materiile mai ușor de înțeles.
“Profesorul își începe cursul, rugând să fie întrerupt pentru orice neînțelegere”
Mihaela Rusu are 20 de ani și este studentă în anul doi la Universitatea din Alcalá de Henares, Facultatea de Administración y Dirección de Empresas. Ea spune că cel mai dureros este faptul că în România, efortul elevilor sau al studenților nu este apreciat, iar admiterile nu exprimă adevărata valoare a candidatului.
„În România este apreciată doar ‘contribuția’. Facultățile oferă zeci de mii de locuri pentru înscrieri, si logic, cum toți reuşesc să treacă examenele de admitere, ne trezim că un student care chiar a învățat se va situa pe același loc cu unul lipsit complet de pregătire”, a explicat Mihaela.
În ceea ce priveşte motivele pentru care a ales să urmeze cursurile la o universitate din Spania, ea a spus că atât liceul cât și școala generală au contribuit decisiv la hotărârea de a-și continua studiile în strainătate. „Am ales să urmez o facultate în străinatate deoarece începusem să mă satur de tot ceea ce se întamplă în Romçnia, atât pe plan educațional, cât și pe plan general”. Pentru Mihaela, una dintre principalele diferențe între sistemul din țară și cel din Spania constă în faptul că dacă în România profesorul are pretenția să-i memorezi lecțiile, aici predarea cursurilor se bazează pe înțelegere.
„Nu merge nimeni la școală să scrie repede-repede tot ce îi dictează profesorul și să învețe cuvințel cu cuvințel pentru ora următoare că să ia un „zece”. Și dacă tot vorbim de zece, aici nota maxima se întâlnește mai greu; și asta nu pentru că spaniolii nu ar avea capacitate de înțelegere, ci pentru că aici notele reflectă în realitate munca și perseverența elevilor”, a mai spus Mihaela care se bucură şi pentru faptul că “aici relația profesor-student este mult mai familiară, în general, profesorul își începe cursul rugând să fie întrerupt pentru orice neînțelegere”.
Pe lângă pregătirea şi pedagogia profesorilor, în Spania cursurile sunt mult mai atractive şi predarea se face cu ajutorul unei baze didactice moderne.
“Avem acces la e-mail-urile profesorilor și putem să le solicităm informații prin care putem să clarificăm eventuale neînțelegeri. Avem acces la pagina web a facultății, dotată cu „aula virtuală” și un forum în care suntem toți înscrisi și ne ajutăm reciproc: dacă cineva are o nelămurire, îi răspunde un alt coleg care ştie răspunsul, dar de multe ori intervin chiar și profesorii înșiși. Sunt foarte deschiși la idei noi”, a explicat Mihaela Rusu.
Întrebată dacă intenționează să se întoarcă în țară, aceasta a spus că pe fondul gravelor probleme cu care se confruntă România în toate domeniile, de la sănătate la educație și transporturi, singurul motiv pentru care s-ar mai întoarce în țară este familia.
“Tot sistemul românesc de învățământ este îmbătrânit”
Vlad Panait are 21 de ani și este student în anul 1 la Facultatea de Arhitectură din cadrul Universității Complutense. El a terminat în România liceul de Arhitectură, după care a intrat la Facultatea de Arhitectură “Ion Mincu” din București. S-a pregătit 4 ani pentru un examen de admitere dificil, însă a renunțat la această facultate după un semestru. “După doi ani de meditații și 4 ani la Liceul de arhitectură, am reușit să intru la Facultatea de Arhitectură, în București. Așteptările mele au fost prea mari pentru că am muncit foarte mult, iar dezamăgirea a fost imensă. Profesorii din facultate mergeau pe același sistem ca și profesori din generală și liceu, comunicarea student-profesor era practic inexistentă, iar dacă la cursuri puneam mai mult de 2 întrebări, eram privit ciudat. Așa că m-am hotărât să merg la o facultate în Spania. Aici e altfel, profesorul încearcă să comunice cât mai mult cu studentul, iar intervențiile noastre sunt încurajate”, mărturiseşte Vlad.
El s-a acomodat rapid aici, atât cu noul colectiv și noua facultate, nu a avut probleme de discriminare, ci dimpotrivă, atât colegii cât și profesorii sunt foarte amabili și îl ajută cu explicații și lămuriri suplimentare. Întrebat de ce a ales Spania, Vlad spune că a încercat să se orienteze către o țară cât mai apropiată de România, atât ca limbă dar și ca societate, a analizat oferta mai multor universități și a ales Facultatea de Arhitectură, din cadrul Universității Complutense după ce a observat că banii pe care îi plătea pentru a urma o facultate în România reprezintă cam la aceeași sumă pe care o plătește pentru o facultate în Spania.
“Tot sistemul românesc este îmbătrânit, este vorba și de profesori, și de mentalitatea elevilor, și de educație, dar și de mecanismul de predare și învățare. Nu știu care este motorul aici, însă totul este schimbat, profesorii sunt mult mai deschiși. Este adevărat că aici trebuie să înveți mult mai mult decât în România, însă și munca îți este apreciată”, a mai precizat acesta.
Întrebat dacă dorește să se întoarcă în țară după terminarea studiilor, Vlad a spus că dacă va reuși să se angajeze în domeniul pentru care se pregătește în prezent, “nu are niciun motiv” să mai revină în țară.
“Majoritatea studenților români nu doresc să mai revină în țară”
Ciprian Munteanu, reprezentantul Ligii Studenților Români în Străinătate, filiala Spania, crede că unul dintre motivele pentru care tot mai mulți tineri aleg să urmeze o facultate în Spania îl reprezintă faptul că prețurile pentru a urma o facultate în țară sunt aproximativ aceleași cu sumele pe care le plătești pentru studiile în Spania. În privinţa numărului de studenți români care sunt în Spania în prezent, nu există date exacte, însă se știe că în fiecare an, to mai mulţi studenți români aleg să urmeze o facultate în Spania.
“Din câte știu eu, majoritatea studenților români care termină o facultate în Spania nu doresc să mai revină în țară. În general, studenții români se remarcă ușor, sunt studenți străluciți care au șanse mari să prindă un loc de muncă foarte bine plătit aici. Salariul mare nu este însă singurul motiv pentru care aceștia aleg să rămână în Spania, ci și stilul de viață și aprecierea de care se pot bucura într-o țară care știe să aprecieze adevăratele valori”, ne-a declarat Ciprian Munteanu.
Costurile, în cazul unora dintre facultăţi, sunt atât de apropiate, încât opţiunea de a studia în Spania este mai mult decât o variantă accesibilă ca preţ, dar mai ales este atrăgătoare prin ceea ce se obţine studiind într-o ţară europeană. Ca să studieze Arhitectura, Vlad Panait plătea în România 900 de euro pe an, iar aici la Universitatea Complutense studiile îl costă 1000 de euro pe an. În ceea ce o priveşte pe Mihaela Rusu, dacă în România plătea 25 de milioane de lei, la Universitatea din Alcala de Henares, un an de studiu costă 600 de euro pe an.
Aproape oricine poate ajunge să studieze la universităţile din Spania. Actele necesare pentru admiterea la facultățile din Spania sunt următoarele: diploma de bacalaureat, foaia matricolă și certificatul de naștere, acte care trebuie traduse în limba spaniolă și legalizate. Aceste documente trebuie depuse ulterior la UNED, un birou al Ministerului Educației, unde se va întocmi actul care reprezintă recunoașterea studiilor de către sistemul de educație spaniol. Cu acest act se poate face apoi înscrierea la facultățile din Spania, unde se ia în considerare nota de la bacalaureat.
La fel cum sistemul sanitar rămâne fără medici şi fără asistente pentru că aceştia aleg Vestul, iată că emigrarea tinerilor specialişti se face deja dinainte de a începe studiile universitare. Lipsa de competitivitate a învătământului superior românesc îi determină pe mulţi dintre tinerii români să decidă dacă vor aibă o diplomă agăţată pe perete sau realmente doresc să se specializeze şi să aplice ceea ce învaţă în lumea reală.
Articolul a aparut in ziarul El Rumano
sursa: ramonaleseanu.wordpress.com
trimite unui prieten
“Lenesii” greci si “nazistii” germani: spre ce ne indreptam?
Spre ce ne duce criza economica mondiala? In ultimele zile ies la suprafata conflicte ingropate timp de 60 de ani, pe care insasi existenta Uniunii Europene trebuia sa le faca uitate.
Stim cu totii ca presa germana i-a facut pe greci lenesi si mincinosi. Asta, dupa ce s-a descoperit ca deficitul bugetar real al Greciei era aproape dublu fata de cel declarat oficial. Sincer, o asemenea reactie mi se pare foarte de inteles. De vreme ce „gaura” din economia Greciei urmeaza sa fie acoperita cu bani platiti in mare parte de poporul german, e normal germanii sa fie si suparati si ingrijorati de situatie. De asemenea, e normal ca UE sa puna conditii in schimbul banilor: altfel, ar ajunge sa plateasca la infinit salariile angajatilor statului grec. Deci lucrurile erau inca in planul logicii economice.
Dar faptul ca grecii au raspuns facindu-i pe germani nazisti, duce conflictul pe cu totul alt plan. Un plan al urilor istorice, al razbunarilor de tip vendeta, care se poarta pe zeci de ani si in care nimeni nu uita, si nici nu iarta. Daca va incepe o perioada de infierbintare a pasiunilor nationaliste, pe fondul saraciei si somajului provocate de criza in intreaga Europa, disponibilitatea de a ajuta un alt popor (in special pe „cersetorii” est-europeni) va scadea enorm. Toate acestea sunt complet impotriva ideii in jurul careia a fost creata Uniunea Europeana.
Si ce pot sa faca acum germanii? Daca refuza sa mai ajute Grecia si o lasa sa se prabuseasca singura, consecintele economice si politice sunt greu de prevazut. Daca totusi grecii primesc bani, cu toate ca refuza orice plan de restructurare, banii respectivi sunt irositi. Aceasta dilema va duce la o atitudine mult mai severa a UE, fata de celelalte tari aflate in dificultate.
Care vor fi consecintele asupra Romaniei, cu birocratia ei corupta si ne-reformata de 20 de ani? Pai, n-are rost sa ne mintim: imaginea romanilor in tari ca Germania, Franta, Marea Britanie sau Italia este deja foarte proasta. La nivelul populatiei cel putin, nimeni nu se simte „solidar” cu noi. Iar criza este mai grava, va dura mai multi ani, si va afecta mai multe tari decit credea anul trecut clasa politica romaneasca. Poate ca membrii vechi ai UE (desi au si ei probleme mari) vor fi dispusi sa faca un efort in 2010 pentru Spania, sau Portugalia. Dar fondurile anti-criza ale UE nu sunt sac fara fund. Iar Romania, ma tem, va fi ultima pe lista prioritatilor.
Mihai Giurgea
sursa: standard.ro
trimite unui prieten
I.M.F. Chief Suggests Look at New Reserve Currency
WASHINGTON — The chief of the International Monetary Fund said Friday that the organization should reorient itself to better detect systemic risks to the global economy and quickly step in with emergency loans when financial crises emerge.
The I.M.F. leader, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, also floated the idea of creating a global reserve currency that could serve as an alternative to the dollar.
After a speech at the I.M.F. headquarters, Mr. Strauss-Kahn said in response to a question about the fiscal crisis in Greece that the fund would be “happy to help if asked” but that the European Union appeared able to resolve the crisis on its own.
“The Europeans, especially the members of the euro zone, want to try to deal with the problems themselves,” Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a former French finance minister, said. “I perfectly respect this.”
The I.M.F. has collaborated with the European Union and the European Central Bank in recent days, sending experts to Athens, but the Europeans have taken the lead on demanding that the Greek government impose cuts in public spending and other austerity measures.
In his speech, Mr. Strauss-Kahn called for a “renewed vision” for the I.M.F., which was part of the global financial architecture created in Bretton Woods, N.H., in 1944, but which faced grave questions about its relevance and survival by the time Mr. Strauss-Kahn took over in 2007.
The global financial crisis quickly turned things around. Coffers at the fund, which has 186 member nations, grew to $850 billion in the last year, an amount that Mr. Strauss-Kahn described as “sufficient to meet demand in the coming period.”
He called for the fund to improve its tools for financial surveillance and to “construct a global risk map” of nascent systemic risks. And while noting that the Federal Reserve and other central banks provided liquidity swaps during the worst of the crisis, he said that the I.M.F. should explore options like short-term credit lines for extending emergency lending in future crises.
He said the fund planned to triple its lending in low-income countries and to waive interest on loans to poor countries until 2012.
Mr. Strauss-Kahn also said it would be “intellectually healthy to explore” the creation of a new global reserve currency.
The governor of China’s central bank made a similar proposal in March 2009, arguing that “special drawing rights” — baskets of currencies issued by the I.M.F. and made up of the euro, yen, pound and dollar that have served as reserve assets — would be more stable and viable than the dollar. China’s huge holdings of dollar reserves in the form of Treasury securities have become a concern for officials on both sides of the Pacific.
Mr. Strauss-Kahn said that a new reserve currency could limit dependence on the policies and conditions of a single, though dominant, country.Few economists say they believe that the dollar’s status as the dominant foreign exchange reserve will change anytime soon. Mr. Strauss-Kahn said that while the fund might be called upon to provide a globally issued reserve asset some day, “that day has not yet come.”
Kenneth S. Rogoff, a Harvard professor and a former chief economist at the I.M.F., said the idea had been a “perennial big-think question” for decades but remained mostly hypothetical. “At the end of the day, you can’t have a currency without a fiscal policy underlying it,” he said in an interview.
Asked for a response to the remarks, the Treasury Department pointed to its most recent semiannual foreign exchange report, released in October. That report said that “as long as the United States maintains sound macroeconomic policies and deep, liquid, and open financial markets, the dollar will continue to be the major reserve currency.”
SEWELL CHAN
sursa: nytimes.com
trimite unui prieten
Singurele doua batalii pentru Constitutie care conteaza
Nu, batalia pentru modificarea Constitutiei nu va fi despre numarul parlamentarilor. Nu va fi despre parlamentul uni sau bicameral. Nu va fi nici macar despre crearea unui stat mai modern, mai putin birocratizat sau despre un sistem de justitie mai eficient.
Doar doua lucruri conteaza pentru partidele care trebuie sa se puna de acord pentru modificarea Constitutiei - care e rolul exact al presedintelui in desemnarea premierului si daca judetele se vor desfiinta pentru a fi inlocuite cu unitati mai mari.
Batalia pentru premier
Modul in care se face numirea pentru functia de premier ii intereseaza in primul rand pe “greii” de la centru, care nu vor sa repete situatia de la sfarsitul lui 2009, cand majoritatea parlamentara nu reusea sa impuna un sef al guvernului.
Cu Basescu presedinte inca cinci ani de acum incolo, PSD si PNL stiu ca acesta va dori de fiecare data sa-si impuna primul ministru care ii convine. Nimeni nu si-l inchipuie pe Basescu lucrand cu Victor Ponta sau Crin Antonescu la sefia cabinetului de ministri.
De fapt, e putin probabil sa-l vedem lucrand din aceasta postura cu vreunul dintre liderii actuali ai celor doua partide. Singurii oameni din PSD si PNL pe care Basescu i-ar vedea la ora actuala conducand guvernul sunt tocmai oamenii lui - sefii SIE si SRI George Maior si Mihai Razvan Ungureanu.
Tocmai de aceea, oamenii lui Ponta si Antonescu ar trebui sa se bata din rasputeri pentru ca in noua Constitutie sa fie trecut negru pe alb ca majoritatea parlamentara da premierul, indiferent ce ar fi. Daca nu, Basescu va conduce Romania pana in ultima secunda a presedintiei sale. Și nu doar formal.
Spaima baronilor si baronasilor
A doua prevedere pentru care se vor da lupte grele va fi cea despre reorganizarea administrativ-teritoriala a Romaniei. Baronii si baronasii tuturor partidelor vor incerca din rasputeri sa impiedica desfiintarea judetelor si crearea unor regiuni mai mari. Și au si de ce.
20-30 dintre ei isi vor pierde posturile si influenta. Și multi, multi bani odata cu toate astea. Cum se va reorienta clientela politica judeteana ? Dar toate firmele capusa ? Sau birocratia peste masura de stufoasa si ineficienta ? Sute de mii de oameni care profita din impartirea in asa multe judete vor avea de pierdut pe termen scurt, chiar daca tara in ansamblu ar avea de castigat. Tocmai de aceea, PD-L-ului ii va fi greu nu numai sa convinga PSD; PNL si UDMR sa sprijine initiativa, dar si sa -si convinga proprii “baroni teritoriali”.
Esec sau compromis?
Pentru ca populatia sa-si dea acceptul sa se modifice Constitutia, e nevoie mai intai de votul din Parlament a doua treimi din numarul parlamentarilor. Deci PD-L, UDMR si independentii lui Oprea nu sunt de ajuns. Singura cale e compromisul cu PSD si PNL. Care la ora aceasta e aproape imposibil.
Basescu nu va ceda vreodata in chestiunea numirii premierului. Iar liderii PSD si PNL sunt constienti ca a sprijini reorganizarea teritoriala in regiuni mai mari ineamna pierderea sprijinului organizatiilor judetene, oricum nemultumite ca “fac foamea” in Opozitie.
Cu toate astea, pe termen lung PSD si PNL ar face bine sa nu se mai opuna. Asta fiindca opozitia lor le va da “apa la moara” celor din PD-L, care le vor acuza ca se opun inca o data reformei. Și, cel mai important, le va acuza ca se opun vointei poporului, pentru ca blocarea noii Constitutii inseamna si blocarea a ceea ce au decis romanii prin referendumul din noiembrie- reducerea numarului de parlamentari si trecerea la un Parlament unicameral.
In traducere, PD-L si Traian Basescu au asigurata “munitie de razboi”. Pentru cativa ani de acum incolo.
Lucian Lumezeanu
sursa: ziare.com
trimite unui prieten
Cum se moşteneşte o criză
Am putea fi suspectaţi că ne obsedează substantivul criză - cu atât mai mult cu cât ia amploare fenomenul pe care îl desemnează. În ce ne priveşte, am fi în stare să-l scoatem definitiv din vocabularul limbii române, dar asta nu înseamnă că nu vom mai avea de-a face cu el. De pildă, am observat că, la noi, crizele se moştenesc. Şi sunt duse mai departe. Nu numai de artizanii lor, încântaţi că ideea a prins, ci şi de “neputincioşii” care, cu toate că sunt informaţi, cât de cât, asupra gravităţii situaţiei - indiferent de zona în care se manifestă - cad în capcana cuvântului propriu-zis şi acolo rămân. Cel puţin aşa pare că evoluează lucrurile în spaţiul nostru românesc, unde crizele sunt foarte, foarte nuanţate. Crizele de la primării, care nu sunt în stare să gestioneze un eveniment - fie el şi meteorologic -, criza de la nivelul ministerelor, cum ar fi al mediului, al drumurilor, al sănătăţii etc., greu încercate, sunt o infimă parte din fluviul crizelor româneşti. De fapt, odată cu prăbuşirea vechiului regim politic, am asistat cu toţii la o “salbă” de crize, care mai de care mai bizare şi mai greu de stăpânit, dar foarte uşor de moştenit. Cred că, în pofida falimentului pe toate planurile, politicienii noştri au devenit specialişti în moştenirea şi perpetuarea crizelor. Altfel nu se explică de ce mergem din criză în criză şi, pe deasupra, suntem predispuşi să le extindem, pe fiecare în parte, prin arborescenţe infinite.
În general, la nivel mondial, când nu sunt închipuite, ticluite şi mereu împrospătate, crizele se resimt din plin şi, oricât s-ar lamenta omenirea, ele plutesc peste vieţile noastre ca o piază rea. Mai trist este că, din teama de a nu genera prăbuşirea sistemului afectat de criză - politic, social, economic, financiar - mai-marii lumii aşteaptă să le pice din cer o soluţie “viabilă” pentru anihilarea ei. Sau aşteaptă autoreglarea, fenomen specific în orice tip de perturbare, şi la orice nivel. Lăsând la o parte criza financiară şi economică, repetatele crize politice de pe mapamond, alimentare, climaterice, de supraproducţie, oamenii sunt continuu atacaţi şi de propria criză interioară. De fapt, de la acest nivel încep crizele de orice fel. Bunăoară, când sistemul de autoapărare al organismului e la pământ, toată fiinţa intră în criză generală. Nimic nu mai merge. Dar de ce scade capacitatea noastră de autoapărare?! Fiindcă am suprasolicitat rezistenţa propriului corp, biciuindu-l - motivat sau nu -, întinzând la maximum coarda rezistenţei, dincolo de limitele funcţionale anatomo-fiziologice. De aceea, fiecare ins trebuie să se autosupravegheze necontenit. Mai ales că o criză interioară este (şi) una de conştiinţă. Iar unde conştiinţă nu e, conduce haosul, bunul plac, tendinţele hegemonice, dorinţa de a ieşi în faţă - poate din frustrări repetate, venite din copilărie şi duse până la vârsta a treia.
Referitor la criză, ca fenomen general, specialiştii afirmă că e unul normal. “Criza este semnul transformării - ceva trebuie să moară pentru ca apoi să renască. Atât la nivelul unei persoane, cât şi la nivelul întregii umanităţi”, spunea Stanislav Grof, unul dintre cei mai importanţi cercetători ai secolului al XX-lea în domeniul conştiinţei. Unii, însă, au obiceiul de a nu consuma decât prima etapă a acestei transformări, reuşind, cu brio, să îmbolnăvească - prin ideile şi planurile lor nesănătoase - toată planeta. Păstrând proporţiile, cam aici s-a ajuns, la noi şi aiurea, fiindcă prea mulţi indivizi sunt certaţi cu ei înşişi şi, ca atare, cu toată lumea. Înalta moralitate, bunătatea, blândeţea, generozitatea, iubirea de aproapele său, meditaţia sau legătura permanentă cu natura vindecătoare, par a fi rămas doar simple cuvinte fără noimă dintr-o poveste de demult… Pe când crizele nu se moşteneau.
sursa: curierulnational.ro
trimite unui prieten
Filantropul Soros prabuseste euro
Directorii unora dintre cele mai importante fonduri de investitii din lume, printre care Soros Fund Management, Greenlight Capital si SAC Capital Advisors, incearca sa destabilizeze moneda unica europeana, pentru a obtine castiguri enorme. Cotidianul The Wall Street Journal sustine ca, in cadrul unei intalniri desfasurate la inceputul lunii, in Manhattan, acestia au convenit sa grabesaca prabusirea euro, pentru ca, in paralel sa poata castiga miliarde de dolari, printr-o serie de speculatii pe piata financiara.
Se pare ca obiectivul “elitelor” de pe piata finaciara, care profita si de situatia din Grecia, este ca euro sa ajunga la valoarea dolarului, sau chiar sub acesta. Astfel, daca in luna decembrie, euro era cotat la 1,51 de dolari, in luna februarie acesta a ajuns la 1,35. Scenariul a fost confirmat si de Hans Hufschmit, directorul fondului de investitii GlobeOp Financial Service, care a declarat ca aceasta “este o oportunitate … de a face foarte multi bani”.
Intamplator sau nu, saptamana trecuta, George Soros declara ca, in cazul in care Uniunea Europeana “nu va face ordine pe propria piata finanaciara, euro s-ar putea prabusi”. Daca ministerul de finante din Grecia a refuzat sa comenteze informatia, un purtator de cuvant al Comisiei Europene a declatrat ca institutia pe care o reprezinta nu comenteaza zvonurile aparute pe piata finaciara. El a adugat totusi ca, responsabilii Uniunii Europene depun eforturi in vederea consolidarii legislatiei si reducerii riscurilor din acest domeniu. Interesant este si faptul ca, ataturi de George Soros, la intalnirea din Manhattan ar fi participat si presedintele Greenlight Capital, David Einhorn, care a jucat un rol important in accelerarea procesului de falimentare a holdingului Lehman Brothers. Wall Street Journal aminteste si de scandalul din anul 1992, cand lira sterlina s-a prabusit in urma speculatiilor facute pe piata finaciara de George Soros. Atunci, omul de afaceri de origine maghiara ar fi obtinut un profit de peste 1 miliard de dolari.
George Damian
sursa: ziuaveche.ro
trimite unui prieten
The Bank of the Fed is Closed… Forever
In an effort to explain our escalating financial crisis, an American Nightmare (an Environmental Dream), the pundits are focusing their angst on the 44th POTUS, who might very well go down as the single most inept president in all of American history. (How to Squander the Presidency in One Year, David Michael Green)
Barack Obama is not inept, greedy or stupid and he isn’t one of “us”.
He rose from obscurity to power with his top economics adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the co-founder of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and he travels in the same circles as other members of the super-secret Skull & Bones Society at Yale University, who pretend to be running for president every four years.
The decision to have Obama preside over the greatest financial calamity since the Great Depression was made five years ago; the November election was a formality. (Why Joseph Biden will be the Next Vice President of the United States)
To believe otherwise, is to ignore the Bradley/Palin effect and the decision by John McCain to wait until his concession speech to shed the image of a nasty “grumpy old man.”
In September 2008, when the Obama campaign seemed to be slumping and their candidate’s long-standing lead in the polls had evaporated, the senator’s supporters openly worried that a potential victory might be slipping away. Then, providence joined the campaign: the failure of the giant investment bank Lehman Brothers followed by a global financial meltdown in the month of October.
And, “speaking of change”, escalating the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and his policies on Guantanamo, state secrets, renditions, executive power, bail-outs and the stimulus packages are for the most part identical to those of George W. Bush.
However, the policies at the Federal Reserve have changed…inexplicably, monumentally and historically:
As of October 2008, the men behind the Federal Reserve, all connected to the House of Rothschild, are no longer giving up what’s left of their real wealth so the middle class can live the American Dream, a nightmare for the planet.
Brian Deese, special assistant to president Obama for economic policy, in his first government position, shuffles back and forth from the West Wing to the Treasury Department rewriting the rules of American “capitalism” as he dismantles the US Housing, Automobile Industry and the American Dream. (The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling G.M., David E. Sanger)
Deese’s First Rule: Withdraw Credit and Liquidity:
Causing spending to fall even further, forcing companies to cut back on inventory and staff – Creating even more unemployment…263,000 jobs eliminated bringing the total to 39 million Americans who are no longer working or looking for work. (The September Employment Rate is 90%)
And that’s before the recently announced “planned three-year budget freeze on government discretionary spending.”
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913
One of the most important domestic acts in the nation’s history took the power to create money from the people and gave it to the robber barons of our filtered history books in theory for profit.
The Federal Reserve was instrumental in the development of America into a world power.
The United States, in its first decades, was a land of small farms and nearby towns with few cities of any consequence. The young nation seemed far more interested in becoming a successful experiment in democracy, rather than an economic power.
A central bank, necessary for a consumer society, large cities, a common medium of exchange, and a mechanism to regulate that medium were greeted with hostility, since many of the nation’s leaders disdained the urban life.
Anyone who spoke against the “Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin was silenced.
Presidents Garfield and McKinley, outspoken champions of “sound” money and opponents of a central bank, were suspiciously silenced permanently.
The conflict between rural values and urban reality ended when Woodrow Wilson “unwittingly ruined his country” and signed into law the legislation that put “the growth of the nation . . . and all our activities in the hands of a few scoundrels (men).”
Once those scoundrels got control of the supply of money in the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, they began to buy government securities at the rate of ten million dollars a week for 10 weeks, and created one hundred million dollars in new (checkbook) currency, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started hiring people again.” (Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullins)
Now those scoundrels remain in control of the supply of money in the Barack Obama Administration, they are making generous interest payments to the banks for “parking” their TARP and other government taxpayer bailout money, which is aggravating the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started laying people off (263,000 people in September bringing the total to 39 million Americans who are no longer working or looking for work).
One of the more absurd notions that found its way into the history books and the writings of economic experts, is that somehow these Robinhood barons (swindlers and scoundrels of history) were made wealthier by manipulating the Monopoly money they created out of “thin air” used to “alleviated the critical famine of money and credit” so the factories could start hiring people again and finance our consumer society.
In 1910, the men behind the Federal Reserve Rockefeller, Kuhn, Loeb and Morgan, all connected to the Rothschild’s global financial empire, owned or controlled one-sixth of the world’s real wealth—gold, silver and raw materials—not the fiat currency we call money.
And their real wealth, where is it now?
Used up, as in consumed, by the middle class so former members of the Third Estate (serfs and slaves) could have houses, cars, RVs, TVs and DVDs—the affordable things we take for granted which put the planet, according to the GEO4, a massive United Nations Report, at the “unknown points of no return.” (Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité – Providence, Miracle or What Really Happened)
The swindler’s and scoundrel’s wealth, not yours or mine, was eventually “cut, mined and hauled away,” so that Americans could “trash the planet” with that cheap stuff until October 2008.
Money control, Gustav Stolper wrote in “This Age of Fables” is, “the supreme and most comprehensive of all governmental controls and the 1838 quote:
“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws” (Incorrectly attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild who died in 1812).
Reflects the “maxim” of the House of Rothschild.
However, “money lenders of the Old World” cannot be talking about profits unless you believe The Rothschilds didn’t understand that they were about to give up $500 trillion of real wealth in exchange for $500 trillion pieces of worthless fiat currency.
During the last 100 years, those swindlers and scoundrels were able to distort the structure of relative prices; generate misallocations of labor and capital throughout the economy; rationalize new governmental interventions in the face of the market “instability” manipulate the patterns of and the profits from international trade which resulted in the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, the dot-com and the housing market bubbles and unprecedented prosperity for the middle class.
Would we have a financial crisis to go with our environmental crisis if Wilson hadn’t ruined the country when he gave away the people’s right to print their own money and we had our own bank?
No.
North Dakota is the only state in the union to own its own bank. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) was established by the state legislature in 1919 specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men.
The state of North Dakota, one of only two states (along with Montana) expected to meet its budget in 2010. North Dakota was also the only state to actually gain jobs in 2009 while other states were losing them. Since 2000, North Dakota’s GNP has grown 56 percent, personal income has grown 43 percent and wages have grown 34 percent. North Dakota in 2009, had a budget surplus of $1.3 billion, the largest it ever had – in a state with a population of 700,000. (The North Dakota Model for Capitalizing Community Banks, Ellen Brown)
North Dakota, a land of small farms and towns more interested in remaining a successful experiment in democracy rather than an economic power.
At this point, it is advantageous to consider the efforts of writer Andrew Hitchcock:
“The Rothschilds have been in control of the world for a very long time, their tentacles reaching into many aspects of our daily lives, and are the hidden hand behind all the social cataclysms in history: The French and American Revolution, the Civil War, World Wars, the Industrial Revolution, the Federal Reserve (and our consumer society).”
John Sherman, a Rothschild protégé in a letter sent to New York bankers on June 25, 1863 in support of the then proposed National Banking Act, wrote:
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages…will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests.” (World War II And Pound, 1940-1945: The Anti-Semite Revealed, Ellen Cardona)
In other words, the “few that understand the system”, without a 20th century environmental perspective of the middle class “trashing the planet”, would not be capable of comprehending a system that would put the planet at the “unknown points of no return” because the environmental damage and pollution was the goal and not the unintended consequences of the Industrial Revolution and our consumer society.
The Federal Reserve isn’t evil because they print our money and make us pay interest on it; they are evil because they are in a metaphysical war with mother-earth (Gaea).
October 2008 marked the last day the “lender of last resort” would give up what’s left of their real wealth, used to con us into shopping for useless toxic stuff, to weaken their opponent, mother-earth. (Ominous Signs Are Aligned: Not A Particularly Good Sign (11-09))
Robert Singer
sursa: Infowars.com
trimite unui prieten
US senator warns of ‘financial meltdown’ risk
The US is heading for a debt-driven “financial meltdown” within five to seven years, according to Judd Gregg, the outgoing Republican senator for New Hampshire.
In a robust and at times testy video interview for the Financial Times’s View from DC series, Mr Gregg also complimented China for showing rising alarm about the US’s mounting levels of public debt.
“We have had China say that they are looking for other places to put their reserves and that is probably a smart decision on their part,” said Mr Gregg, who will not seek re-election in November. “So the warning signs are pretty clear and the path is unsustainable and, at this point, unless we take different actions, unavoidable.”
Edward Luce
sursa: ft.com
trimite unui prieten
Franklin Delano Roosevelt - The Great Arsenal of Democracy
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.]
This is not a fireside chat on war. It is a talk on national security; because the nub of the whole purpose of your President is to keep you now, and your children later, and your grandchildren much later, out of a last-ditch war for the preservation of American independence, and all of the things that American independence means to you and to me and to ours.
Tonight, in the presence of a world crisis, my mind goes back eight years to a night in the midst of a domestic crisis. It was a time when the wheels of American industry were grinding to a full stop, when the whole banking system of our country had ceased to function. I well remember that while I sat in my study in the White House, preparing to talk with the people of the United States, I had before my eyes the picture of all those Americans with whom I was talking. I saw the workmen in the mills, the mines, the factories, the girl behind the counter, the small shopkeeper, the farmer doing his spring plowing, the widows and the old men wondering about their life’s savings. I tried to convey to the great mass of American people what the banking crisis meant to them in their daily lives.
Tonight, I want to do the same thing, with the same people, in this new crisis which faces America. We met the issue of 1933 with courage and realism. We face this new crisis, this new threat to the security of our nation, with the same courage and realism. Never before since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock has our American civilization been in such danger as now. For on September 27th, 1940 — this year — by an agreement signed in Berlin, three powerful nations, two in Europe and one in Asia, joined themselves together in the threat that if the United States of America interfered with or blocked the expansion program of these three nations — a program aimed at world control — they would unite in ultimate action against the United States.
The Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world. It was only three weeks ago that their leader stated this: “There are two worlds that stand opposed to each other.” And then in defiant reply to his opponents he said this: “Others are correct when they say: ‘With this world we cannot ever reconcile ourselves.”’ I can beat any other power in the world.” So said the leader of the Nazis.
In other words, the Axis not merely admits but the Axis proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy — their philosophy of government — and our philosophy of government. In view of the nature of this undeniable threat, it can be asserted, properly and categorically, that the United States has no right or reason to encourage talk of peace until the day shall come when there is a clear intention on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon all thought of dominating or conquering the world.
At this moment the forces of the States that are leagued against all peoples who live in freedom are being held away from our shores. The Germans and the Italians are being blocked on the other side of the Atlantic by the British and by the Greeks, and by thousands of soldiers and sailors who were able to escape from subjugated countries. In Asia the Japanese are being engaged by the Chinese nation in another great defense. In the Pacific Ocean is our fleet.
Some of our people like to believe that wars in Europe and in Asia are of no concern to us. But it is a matter of most vital concern to us that European and Asiatic war-makers should not gain control of the oceans which lead to this hemisphere. One hundred and seventeen years ago the Monroe Doctrine was conceived by our government as a measure of defense in the face of a threat against this hemisphere by an alliance in Continental Europe. Thereafter, we stood guard in the Atlantic, with the British as neighbors. There was no treaty. There was no “unwritten agreement.” And yet there was the feeling, proven correct by history, that we as neighbors could settle any disputes in peaceful fashion. And the fact is that during the whole of this time the Western Hemisphere has remained free from aggression from Europe or from Asia.
Does anyone seriously believe that we need to fear attack anywhere in the Americas while a free Britain remains our most powerful naval neighbor in the Atlantic? And does anyone seriously believe, on the other hand, that we could rest easy if the Axis powers were our neighbors there? If Great Britain goes down, the Axis powers will control the Continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, Austral-Asia, and the high seas. And they will be in a position to bring enormous military and naval resources against this hemisphere. It is no exaggeration to say that all of us in all the Americas would be living at the point of a gun — a gun loaded with explosive bullets, economic as well as military. We should enter upon a new and terrible era in which the whole world, our hemisphere included, would be run by threats of brute force. And to survive in such a world, we would have to convert ourselves permanently into a militaristic power on the basis of war economy.
Some of us like to believe that even if Britain falls, we are still safe, because of the broad expanse of the Atlantic and of the Pacific. But the width of those oceans is not what it was in the days of clipper ships. At one point between Africa and Brazil the distance is less than it is from Washington to Denver, Colorado, five hours for the latest type of bomber. And at the north end of the Pacific Ocean, America and Asia almost touch each other. Why, even today we have planes that could fly from the British Isles to New England and back again without refueling. And remember that the range of the modern bomber is ever being increased.
During the past week many people in all parts of the nation have told me what they wanted me to say tonight. Almost all of them expressed a courageous desire to hear the plain truth about the gravity of the situation. One telegram, however, expressed the attitude of the small minority who want to see no evil and hear no evil, even though they know in their hearts that evil exists. That telegram begged me not to tell again of the ease with which our American cities could be bombed by any hostile power which had gained bases in this Western Hemisphere. The gist of that telegram was: “Please, Mr. President, don’t frighten us by telling us the facts.” Frankly and definitely there is danger ahead — danger against which we must prepare. But we well know that we cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads.
Some nations of Europe were bound by solemn nonintervention pacts with Germany. Other nations were assured by Germany that they need never fear invasion. Nonintervention pact or not, the fact remains that they were attacked, overrun, thrown into modern slavery at an hour’s notice — or even without any notice at all. As an exiled leader of one of these nations said to me the other day, “The notice was a minus quantity. It was given to my government two hours after German troops had poured into my country in a hundred places.” The fate of these nations tells us what it means to live at the point of a Nazi gun.
The Nazis have justified such actions by various pious frauds. One of these frauds is the claim that they are occupying a nation for the purpose of “restoring order.” Another is that they are occupying or controlling a nation on the excuse that they are “protecting it” against the aggression of somebody else. For example, Germany has said that she was occupying Belgium to save the Belgians from the British. Would she then hesitate to say to any South American country: “We are occupying you to protect you from aggression by the United States”? Belgium today is being used as an invasion base against Britain, now fighting for its life. And any South American country, in Nazi hands, would always constitute a jumping off place for German attack on any one of the other republics of this hemisphere.
Analyze for yourselves the future of two other places even nearer to Germany if the Nazis won. Could Ireland hold out? Would Irish freedom be permitted as an amazing pet exception in an unfree world? Or the islands of the Azores, which still fly the flag of Portugal after five centuries? You and I think of Hawaii as an outpost of defense in the Pacific. And yet the Azores are closer to our shores in the Atlantic than Hawaii is on the other side.
There are those who say that the Axis powers would never have any desire to attack the Western Hemisphere. That is the same dangerous form of wishful thinking which has destroyed the powers of resistance of so many conquered peoples. The plain facts are that the Nazis have proclaimed, time and again, that all other races are their inferiors and therefore subject to their orders. And most important of all, the vast resources and wealth of this American hemisphere constitute the most tempting loot in all of the round world.
Let us no longer blind ourselves to the undeniable fact that the evil forces which have crushed and undermined and corrupted so many others are already within our own gates. Your government knows much about them and every day is ferreting them out. Their secret emissaries are active in our own and in neighboring countries. They seek to stir up suspicion and dissension, to cause internal strife. They try to turn capital against labor, and vice versa. They try to reawaken long slumbering racial and religious enmities which should have no place in this country. They are active in every group that promotes intolerance. They exploit for their own ends our own natural abhorrence of war. These trouble-breeders have but one purpose. It is to divide our people, to divide them into hostile groups and to destroy our unity and shatter our will to defend ourselves.
There are also American citizens, many of them in high places, who, unwittingly in most cases, are aiding and abetting the work of these agents. I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents. But I do charge them with doing exactly the kind of work that the dictators want done in the United States. These people not only believe that we can save our own skins by shutting our eyes to the fate of other nations. Some of them go much further than that. They say that we can and should become the friends and even the partners of the Axis powers. Some of them even suggest that we should imitate the methods of the dictatorships. But Americans never can and never will do that.
The experience of the past two years has proven beyond doubt that no nation can appease the Nazis. No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb. We know now that a nation can have peace with the Nazis only at the price of total surrender. Even the people of Italy have been forced to become accomplices of the Nazis; but at this moment they do not know how soon they will be embraced to death by their allies.
The American appeasers ignore the warning to be found in the fate of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and France. They tell you that the Axis powers are going to win anyway; that all of this bloodshed in the world could be saved, that the United States might just as well throw its influence into the scale of a dictated peace and get the best out of it that we can. They call it a “negotiated peace.” Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of outlaws surrounds your community and on threat of extermination makes you pay tribute to save your own skins? For such a dictated peace would be no peace at all. It would be only another armistice, leading to the most gigantic armament race and the most devastating trade wars in all history. And in these contests the Americas would offer the only real resistance to the Axis power. With all their vaunted efficiency, with all their parade of pious purpose in this war, there are still in their background the concentration camp and the servants of God in chains.
The history of recent years proves that the shootings and the chains and the concentration camps are not simply the transient tools but the very altars of modern dictatorships. They may talk of a “new order” in the world, but what they have in mind is only a revival of the oldest and the worst tyranny. In that there is no liberty, no religion, no hope. The proposed “new order” is the very opposite of a United States of Europe or a United States of Asia. It is not a government based upon the consent of the governed. It is not a union of ordinary, self-respecting men and women to protect themselves and their freedom and their dignity from oppression. It is an unholy alliance of power and pelf to dominate and to enslave the human race.
The British people and their allies today are conducting an active war against this unholy alliance. Our own future security is greatly dependent on the outcome of that fight. Our ability to “keep out of war” is going to be affected by that outcome. Thinking in terms of today and tomorrow, I make the direct statement to the American people that there is far less chance of the United States getting into war if we do all we can now to support the nations defending themselves against attack by the Axis than if we acquiesce in their defeat, submit tamely to an Axis victory, and wait our turn to be the object of attack in another war later on.
If we are to be completely honest with ourselves, we must admit that there is risk in any course we may take. But I deeply believe that the great majority of our people agree that the course that I advocate involves the least risk now and the greatest hope for world peace in the future.
The people of Europe who are defending themselves do not ask us to do their fighting. They ask us for the implements of war, the planes, the tanks, the guns, the freighters which will enable them to fight for their liberty and for our security. Emphatically, we must get these weapons to them, get them to them in sufficient volume and quickly enough so that we and our children will be saved the agony and suffering of war which others have had to endure.
Let not the defeatists tell us that it is too late. It will never be earlier. Tomorrow will be later than today.
Certain facts are self-evident.
In a military sense Great Britain and the British Empire are today the spearhead of resistance to world conquest. And they are putting up a fight which will live forever in the story of human gallantry. There is no demand for sending an American expeditionary force outside our own borders. There is no intention by any member of your government to send such a force. You can therefore, nail, nail any talk about sending armies to Europe as deliberate untruth. Our national policy is not directed toward war. Its sole purpose is to keep war away from our country and away from our people.
Democracy’s fight against world conquest is being greatly aided, and must be more greatly aided, by the rearmament of the United States and by sending every ounce and every ton of munitions and supplies that we can possibly spare to help the defenders who are in the front lines. And it is no more un-neutral for us to do that than it is for Sweden, Russia, and other nations near Germany to send steel and ore and oil and other war materials into Germany every day in the week.
We are planning our own defense with the utmost urgency, and in its vast scale we must integrate the war needs of Britain and the other free nations which are resisting aggression. This is not a matter of sentiment or of controversial personal opinion. It is a matter of realistic, practical military policy, based on the advice of our military experts who are in close touch with existing warfare. These military and naval experts and the members of the Congress and the Administration have a single-minded purpose: the defense of the United States.
This nation is making a great effort to produce everything that is necessary in this emergency, and with all possible speed. And this great effort requires great sacrifice. I would ask no one to defend a democracy which in turn would not defend every one in the nation against want and privation. The strength of this nation shall not be diluted by the failure of the government to protect the economic well-being of its citizens. If our capacity to produce is limited by machines, it must ever be remembered that these machines are operated by the skill and the stamina of the workers.
As the government is determined to protect the rights of the workers, so the nation has a right to expect that the men who man the machines will discharge their full responsibilities to the urgent needs of defense. The worker possesses the same human dignity and is entitled to the same security of position as the engineer or the manager or the owner. For the workers provide the human power that turns out the destroyers, and the planes, and the tanks. The nation expects our defense industries to continue operation without interruption by strikes or lockouts. It expects and insists that management and workers will reconcile their differences by voluntary or legal means, to continue to produce the supplies that are so sorely needed. And on the economic side of our great defense program, we are, as you know, bending every effort to maintain stability of prices and with that the stability of the cost of living.
Nine days ago I announced the setting up of a more effective organization to direct our gigantic efforts to increase the production of munitions. The appropriation of vast sums of money and a well-coordinated executive direction of our defense efforts are not in themselves enough. Guns, planes, ships and many other things have to be built in the factories and the arsenals of America. They have to be produced by workers and managers and engineers with the aid of machines which in turn have to be built by hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the land. In this great work there has been splendid cooperation between the government and industry and labor. And I am very thankful.
American industrial genius, unmatched throughout all the world in the solution of production problems, has been called upon to bring its resources and its talents into action. Manufacturers of watches, of farm implements, of Linotypes and cash registers and automobiles, and sewing machines and lawn mowers and locomotives, are now making fuses and bomb packing crates and telescope mounts and shells and pistols and tanks.
But all of our present efforts are not enough. We must have more ships, more guns, more planes — more of everything. And this can be accomplished only if we discard the notion of “business as usual.” This job cannot be done merely by superimposing on the existing productive facilities the added requirements of the nation for defense. Our defense efforts must not be blocked by those who fear the future consequences of surplus plant capacity. The possible consequences of failure of our defense efforts now are much more to be feared. And after the present needs of our defense are past, a proper handling of the country’s peacetime needs will require all of the new productive capacity, if not still more. No pessimistic policy about the future of America shall delay the immediate expansion of those industries essential to defense. We need them.
I want to make it clear that it is the purpose of the nation to build now with all possible speed every machine, every arsenal, every factory that we need to manufacture our defense material. We have the men, the skill, the wealth, and above all, the will. I am confident that if and when production of consumer or luxury goods in certain industries requires the use of machines and raw materials that are essential for defense purposes, then such production must yield, and will gladly yield, to our primary and compelling purpose.
So I appeal to the owners of plants, to the managers, to the workers, to our own government employees to put every ounce of effort into producing these munitions swiftly and without stint. With this appeal I give you the pledge that all of us who are officers of your government will devote ourselves to the same whole-hearted extent to the great task that lies ahead.
As planes and ships and guns and shells are produced, your government, with its defense experts, can then determine how best to use them to defend this hemisphere. The decision as to how much shall be sent abroad and how much shall remain at home must be made on the basis of our overall military necessities.
We must be the great arsenal of democracy.
For us this is an emergency as serious as war itself. We must apply ourselves to our task with the same resolution, the same sense of urgency, the same spirit of patriotism and sacrifice as we would show were we at war.
We have furnished the British great material support and we will furnish far more in the future. There will be no “bottlenecks” in our determination to aid Great Britain. No dictator, no combination of dictators, will weaken that determination by threats of how they will construe that determination. The British have received invaluable military support from the heroic Greek Army and from the forces of all the governments in exile. Their strength is growing. It is the strength of men and women who value their freedom more highly than they value their lives.
I believe that the Axis powers are not going to win this war. I base that belief on the latest and best of information.
We have no excuse for defeatism. We have every good reason for hope — hope for peace, yes, and hope for the defense of our civilization and for the building of a better civilization in the future. I have the profound conviction that the American people are now determined to put forth a mightier effort than they have ever yet made to increase our production of all the implements of defense, to meet the threat to our democratic faith.
As President of the United States, I call for that national effort. I call for it in the name of this nation which we love and honor and which we are privileged and proud to serve. I call upon our people with absolute confidence that our common cause will greatly succeed.
trimite unui prieten
O guvernare nociva
Mai intai nu a fost criza. Mai apoi a fost, dar una care nu avea cum sa afecteze o economie care duduia precum cea a Romaniei. Apoi criza a inceput sa isi arate efectele. Cresterea economica de care se vorbea, totusi, si la inceputul lui 2009 s-a dovedit o biata perdea de fum. Imprumutul de la FMI, cel ce initial era doar unul care constituia o “centura de siguranta” pentru o economie ce era prezentata drept puternica, a devenit vital pentru plata salariilor si pensiilor. Acum, acelasi premier Boc, plin de optimism la inceputul anului trecut, a precizat ca tara noastra trece prin cea mai grava criza de dupa cel de-Al Doilea Razboi Mondial. Cu toate acestea, Boc nici chiar acum, in ceasul al doisprezecelea nu crede niciun cuvant din ceea ce spune.
Guvernantii sunt la fel de rupti de realitate ca si acum un an. Indragostiti de camerele de luat vederi, tin discursuri fanteziste. Demagogia se impleteste armonios cu ineficienta acuta a actului de guvernare. Criza a adus grave prejudicii Romaniei. Dar incompetenta alesilor a avut un efect mai nociv chiar decat cel al recesiunii. Lupte politice, reglari de conturi in interiorul partidelor, o campanie electorala ce continua de peste 20 de ani, dublate de lipsa unor masuri economice care sa aiba un rol decisiv in combaterea crizei.
Manipularea cetatenilor, cosmetizarea unei situatii economice grave, comparatiile fortate cu tarile din jurul nostru prin care se arata faptul ca noi stam mult mai bine si nu in ultimul rand incapacitatea clasei politice de a strange randurile in fata atator probleme si neajunsuri ne conduc spre o situatie din ce in ce mai grava. Nu este suficient ca, inca o luna, ai reusit sa mai achiti pensiile si salariile, cand in realitate indatorarea cetatenilor continua sa creasca.
Este inadmisibil ca tot noi sa platim, cu dobanzile aferente, drepturile care ni se cuvin. Minciunile se spun pe un ton apasat. Adevarurile se acund sub presul politicii. Romania a fost confiscata fara scrupule de actuala clasa politica. Populatia este folosita ca masa de manevra electorala pentru atingerea unor tinte personale. Desi cetatenii simt consecintele crizei. Tot mai acut. Nemultumirile sociale sunt pe cale sa se acutizeze. Liderii sindicali vor fi in curand incapabili sa mai tina sub control tavalugul protestelor.
Romanii s-au saturat sa mai faca parte din generatiile de sacrificiu. Iar dispretul alesilor nu face altceva decat sa agraveze o situatie si asa disperata. Si cu toate acestea, daca ne raportam la recentele declaratii ale premierului Boc, ar trebui sa fim multumiti ca inca avem ce pune pe masa. Doar traversam cea mai grava criza a ultimilor 60 de ani. Despre esecul guvernarii insa, Boc nu scoate o vorba. Nici nu ar avea ce spune, de altfel…
Iulian Badea
sursa: cronicaromana.ro
trimite unui prieten
Naluca incontrolabila a datoriei externe
Confruntarea cu o naluca va fi permanent pe agenda noului guvern. Si ar fi existat aceasta confruntare oricare ar fi fost guvernul. Naluca, pentru ca guvernul n-o poate nici macar atinge si cu atat mai putin controla, platindu-i insa - desigur pe seama contribuabilului roman - ravagiile.
Naluca are un nume precis: datoria externa. Si, in ciuda balivernelor pe care le toarna despre aceasta oficialii Bancii Nationale, datele chiar ale institutiei releva de ce datoria externa in cazul Romaniei este o naluca incontrolabila si acut nefasta.
O indatorare externa are si foloase, si ponoase. In cazul Romaniei, nu are decat ponoase, reclamand plati fara ca tara si populatia ei sa fi tras vreun folos.
In principal, indatorarea externa care trece in contul Romaniei nu este a unor entitati romanesti, fie ca este vorba de stat, de firme autohtone sau de populatie, dar este platita de acestea din urma.
Datoria externa a Romaniei a ajuns la aproape 80 miliarde euro. Daca ar fi dupa entitatile romanesti, tara n-ar putea avea, materialmente, o asemenea datorie externa. Populatia nu s-a imprumutat in strainatate. Nici nu putea.
Firmele cu capital romanesc au facut-o sau au putut-o face doar la niveluri derizorii. Iar statul roman, chiar si cu imprumutul impus extern de la FMI-UE, dar din care a intrat in tara deocamdata doar jumatate, are o indatorare slaba.
In total, daca este vorba de o indatorare externa a entitatilor romanesti de circa 20 miliarde euro! De mai mult nici nu putea fi vorba, caci nimeni din strainatate n-ar fi imprumutat Romaniei 80 miliarde euro! Si aceasta doar in cativa ani, pentru ca aiuritoarea indatorare externa s-a creat numai in ultimii patru-cinci ani!
Grosul - adica vreo 60 miliarde euro - reprezinta indatorare catre strainatate a subsidiarelor din Romania ale unor firme straine (banci si societati nebancare). Expansiunea in Romania a acestora a fost finantata in ultimii patru-cinci ani cu bani din strainatate, inainte de toate de la societatile-mama.
Fiind vorba de sume angajate din Romania, acestea trec in contul Romaniei ca datorie externa. Care ar fi atunci problema, pentru ca, in principiu, cel ce se indatoreaza acela trebuie sa si plateasca?!
Entitatile romanesti ar urma sa-si plateasca partea lor, iar firmele straine, daca s-au indatorat mai mult, ar urma sa plateasca mai mult!
In practica, nu este deloc asa! Indatorarea subsidiarelor din Romania fata de alte tari, repetam indeosebi fata de propriile mame din Occident, formeaza ceea ce se numeste indeobste expunerea financiara straina fata de Romania.
Interventia crizei economice si financiare a ridicat problema riscurilor unei expuneri financiare prea mari fata de o zona sau alta, fata de o tara sau alta, in raport cu vulnerabilitatile concrete existente. Oricum, a aparut tendinta naturala de retragere din zonele periferice pentru apararea redutelor principale din tarile de origine.
Firmele straine din Romania au santajat, ca la drumul mare, statul roman cu reducerea expunerii financiare pe Romania sau, altfel spus, cu retragerea de angajamente financiare din Romania.
La expuneri de 60 miliarde euro, din care peste 22 miliarde euro pe termen scurt, o reducere chiar de numai 10-15% inseamna iesiri nete din Romania intre 6 si 10 miliarde euro.
Adica sume absolut imposibil de compensat de catre statul roman si capitalul romanesc. Iar, fara compensari, leul se prabusea inexorabil, daca nu se strangea cureaua de catre entitatile romanesti (stat, firme, populatie) cu sumele corespondente.
Firmele straine din Romania au cerut pur si simplu statului roman sa aduca bani din strainatate pentru a le completa reducerea finantarii din partea mamelor lor, amenintand ca altfel isi iau talpasita. S-a inventat cea mai murdara modalitate de iesire! Un experiment fara precedent!
A fost pus statul roman sa se imprumute de la FMI-UE pentru a aduce pe piata firmelor straine finantarea de care fusesera private, in contextul crizei, de catre mamele lor din Occident. Un experiment straniu: un imprumut pentru altii!
Subsidiarele firmelor straine au fost temporar salvate. Temporar, pentru ca si-au rezolvat doar o parte infima din problema. In schimb, statul roman, ca platitor, a fost infundat adanc intr-o nefericire irecuperabila.
Pentru firmele straine, 20 de miliarde euro constituie mai nimic. Pentru statul roman, 20 miliarde euro reprezinta o suma abominabila pe care o va plati cu enorme constrangeri pentru populatie. Si va fi vorba de plati pentru nimic!
Problema ramane insa absolut intacta, chiar daca o parte din datoria presanta pe termen scurt a subsidiarelor firmelor straine din Romania a fost preluata pe termen mediu si lung de catre statul roman.
Firmele straine vor ameninta - si chiar ameninta - in continuare cu reducerea expunerii financiare pe Romania, care cu cat este mai abrupta, cu atat naruieste mai rapid leul si perspectivele.
Statul roman, care din motive electorale descoperise in imprumutul de la FMI comoditatea politica de a nu face ajustarile impuse de criza in sectorul public, va trebui sa se lupte cu naluca datoriei externe de indata ce vor incepe platile in contul imprumutului de la FMI-UE.
Poate sa se dea si peste cap sa faca ajustari - inclusiv reduceri de salarii si pensii -, caci va fi aproape degeaba! La nivelul problemei puse de expunerea financiara a firmelor straine pe Romania, ajustarile respective nu se vor resimti aproape cu nimic, intrucat va fi vorba de o picatura intr-un ocean.
Poate statul roman sa ne puna sa strangem sever cureaua pentru a redresa situatia, dar echilibrarile sunt imposibile, intrucat dezechilibrele nu sunt in ograda Romaniei, ci la altii. Doar platite sunt de noi!
Analiza de Ilie Serbanescu
sursa: bloombiz.ro
trimite unui prieten
Unplug the Signal: The Truth Will Not Be Televised
A flow of information is constantly streaming from the television set; a bombardment of words and pictures. The speed at which this information is communicated makes it easy for the signal to take control, switching the viewer’s brain to stand-by as information is absorbed without analysis or question. Today the television’s constant signal shapes the conclusions of the masses and produces the collective norm. The signal prescribes what is news and what is truth through the words of so-called experts and authorities, gelding the consciousness and independent thoughts of those subjected to it. Through television, the masses can be made to accept the most monstrous distortions of reality. The signal is a chill wind of continuous oppression over the minds of the masses. It controls the management of society and culture, creating uniformity across all subjects.
The fuel for this vehicle of mass deception is a technique known as perception management where an array of psychological techniques are used to alter the truth, leading the viewer to a desired conclusion. Some call this spin or propaganda while others know it as lying. According to Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Adolph Hitler, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it… It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Most of what can be found on the nightly news is nothing but advertisements selling more government and a false reality that benefits only those in control. Television is the dictator of information; newspaper and radio are the whisper campaign of the television’s message.
It is expected that Americans will consistently prescribe to the doctrine of the television. It is subtly communicated that one should stay within the collective and never challenge the message, for doing so may be considered an aggression towards culture. The message is, “Be a good consumer; always obey authority; you know nothing; listen only to experts; be content and never question or express new ideas.” This signal is being broadcast across millions of screens, indoctrinating the unconscious minds of those who choose this as their only reality. Self-censorship occurs when these individuals become so deeply indoctrinated that they are afraid to discuss any information outside the paradigm of television-created culture; they police their thoughts to ensure they won’t conflict with this culture. Sadly, many people’s reality today does not allow any outside information to process, instead it is written off as conspiracy or blatant lies. Our consciousness has been destroyed so much that fiction has become reality. An entire lifestyle of poisonous foods, pharmaceuticals, and fluoridated water are accepted as safe and sold to us at the cost of our health and well being.
Those of the establishment are using the incredibly powerful weapon of mass psychology as a method of controlling the minds of the masses and altering the behavior of individuals. Edward Bernays, a pioneer in the field of public relations in the 20th century, applied Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis to manipulate the masses by engineering consent. According to Bernays, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” Advertisers and psychologists of the billion dollar culture creation industry manufacture trends through the proliferation of insecurities; and manipulating desires and emotions. These concepts are also employed to control how individuals think about politics, as well as the possibilities and limitations within society. Those welding power within our streams of mass communication market their plans into each generation as individuals adopt specific ways of thinking and never suspect that all the major events and trends within their lifetime are actually planned by an elite few before they are even born. In our society today, culture is created from the top down. Virtually all forms of culture are created by the ruling class to build a false sense of reality, ensure social compliance, and control the future course of cultural evolution.
Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats. It is used through television by including certain situations or ideas within the plots of many fictional shows, familiarizing the viewer with these concepts no matter what they may be watching. When similar situations occur or like ideas are circulated in the world we think that these particular things are quite natural for we have unknowingly been made familiar with them through television. By viewing nearly any popular show on television, one can see the same propaganda that will be aired on the nightly news. Propaganda on a wide array of subjects has been interwoven into a great number of television shows. Just a few of these subjects include global warming, vaccinations, torture, terrorism, national security, the militarization of police, and the degradation of the family unit. Through predictive programming, television shapes culture and prevents individuals from asking questions.
Crisis’ are created on a daily basis and broadcast across the airwaves to keep individuals in a state of panic and fear. Whether it be the threat of a pandemic or terrorism, the constant state of crisis has created a form of mental illness as we are slowly acclimated into an age of crisis. By using Hegelian dialectic, the television promotes the problem, guides our reaction, and presents the solution. The problem of terrorism was exclaimed, a strong emotional response was evoked, and it was stated that our rights need be sacrificed in order to protect us from the threat. We’ve lost personal sovereignty under the guise of terrorism; we’re stopped and searched; we’re watched by cameras as we go about our lives; and we’re encouraged to spy on our neighbors. We have been trained to accept the life of a prisoner.
America is in a state of enlightened despotism where most individuals live only to satisfy selfish inner desires and remain ignorant of the state of the world around them. In most public places one can find a television transmitting propaganda around the clock ensuring the masses remain focused on trivial matters. From birth we take the world as it’s presented on television. We don’t question it and any serious criticism of TV is becoming psychologically impossible in society. Who would suspect getting born into a world where everything around you is a continuous lie? The youth of today are convinced that the experts and personalities on television are the authority of credible information while parents and older generations are foolish with dated ideas. Children are conditioned to disconnect from what is truly important to their well being and instead focus on mindless trivia, sports, celebrity gossip, and buying an array of material things. They invest their psychological worth in fantasy characters on television while ignoring or even scorning individuals contributing to the betterment of humanity. They are discouraged from getting involved in their local community and often lack the ability to think independently or to resist corruption. As their children’s minds are molded by television, there is barely a murmur from the public.
For over half a century, our society has lived under this signal of mental programming and conditioning. The message is clear: don’t be a leader, don’t engage in critical thinking, and don’t care about the people in your life. Until individuals become aware of the current information war, our standard of living and our liberties will continue to be degraded and we will continue to lose communities and meaningful relationships between people. Currently, pockets of resistance are beginning to spring up everywhere as some unplug the signal and regain control of their own thoughts. Informed individuals are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions and instead spending time with their families and children while participating in meaningful experiences. They are seeking alternative news sources. They are reading about those who weld incredible influence over culture like Edward Bernays, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Charles Galton Darwin, Plato, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley. However, it is a continuous battle to educate the masses for the television remains our greatest threat to individual sovereignty and the largest obstacle to becoming a truly informed individual. Fortunately, unplugging from the signal is easy. The television can simply be turned off. Through doing so, you may realize nearly our entire world is now a hoax; things once known as truth are fake. We have been trained like dogs to be obedient to our television; our master has had our minds on a tight leash. Let us never forget the truth will not be televised.
Nathan Janes
sursa: Pupaganda
trimite unui prieten
Ronald Reagan - “The Evil Empire”
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.]
Moderator: Ladies and Gentlemen: The President of the United States, Ronald Reagan.
President Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
And, Reverend Clergy all, Senator Hawkins, distinguished members of the Florida congressional delegation, and all of you: I can’t tell you how you have warmed my heart with your welcome. I’m delighted to be here today.
Those of you in the National Association of Evangelicals are known for your spiritual and humanitarian work. And I would be especially remiss if I didn’t discharge right now one personal debt of gratitude. Thank you for your prayers. Nancy and I have felt their presence many times in many ways. And believe me, for us they’ve made all the difference.
The other day in the East Room of the White House at a meeting there, someone asked me whether I was aware of all the people out there who were praying for the President. And I had to say, “Yes, I am. I’ve felt it. I believe in intercessionary prayer.” But I couldn’t help but say to that questioner after he’d asked the question that — or at least say to them that if sometimes when he was praying he got a busy signal, it was just me in there ahead of him. I think I understand how Abraham Lincoln felt when he said, “I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.” From the joy and the good feeling of this conference, I go to a political reception. Now, I don’t know why, but that bit of scheduling reminds me of a story which I’ll share with you.
An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven’s gate one day together. And St. Peter, after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn’t believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.
And he couldn’t help but ask, he said, “But wait, how — there’s something wrong — how do I get this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?” And St. Peter said, “You have to understand how things are up here. We’ve got thousands and thousands of clergy. You’re the first politician who ever made it.”
But I don’t want to contribute to a stereotype. So I tell you there are a great many God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And yes, we need your help to keep us ever-mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.
The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said: “If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.” Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.” And it was George Washington who said that “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America’s greatness and genius — and he said: “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
Well, I’m pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.
I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities: the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.
Now, I don’t have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a — a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.
An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I’m involved I’ve been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?
Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated, deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, some time ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.
For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they’ve done so. Girls termed “sexually active” — and that has replaced the word “promiscuous” — are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion.
Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. One of the nation’s leading newspapers has created the term “squeal rule” in editorializing against us for doing this, and we’re being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I’ve watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.
Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn’t it the parents’ right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives?
Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We’re going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers.
But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. When our Founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.
The evidence of this permeates our history and our government. The Declaration of Independence mentions the Supreme Being no less than four times. “In God We Trust” is engraved on our coinage. The Supreme Court opens its proceedings with a religious invocation. And the members of Congress open their sessions with a prayer. I just happen to believe the schoolchildren of the United States are entitled to the same privileges as Supreme Court justices and congressmen.
Last year, I sent the Congress a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools. Already this session, there’s growing bipartisan support for the amendment, and I am calling on the Congress to act speedily to pass it and to let our children pray.
Perhaps some of you read recently about the Lubbock school case, where a judge actually ruled that it was unconstitutional for a school district to give equal treatment to religious and nonreligious student groups, even when the group meetings were being held during the students’ own time. The First Amendment never intended to require government to discriminate against religious speech.
Senators Denton and Hatfield have proposed legislation in the Congress on the whole question of prohibiting discrimination against religious forms of student speech. Such legislation could go far to restore freedom of religious speech for public school students. And I hope the Congress considers these bills quickly. And with your help, I think it’s possible we could also get the constitutional amendment through the Congress this year.
More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of fifty states statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.
You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and indeed, I’m sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life — infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a handicapped infant.
I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health care facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step of requiring that each and every recipient of federal funds who provides health care services to infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that “discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by federal law.” It also lists a twenty-four-hour; toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to save the infant’s life.
In addition, recent legislation introduced by — in the Congress by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois not only increases restrictions on publicly financed abortions, it also addresses this whole problem of infanticide. I urge the Congress to begin hearings and to adopt legislation that will protect the right of life to all children, including the disabled or handicapped.
Now, I’m sure that you must get discouraged at times, but there you’ve done better than you know, perhaps. There’s a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values that have been the bedrock of America’s goodness and greatness.
One recent survey by a Washington-based research council concluded that Americans were far more religious than the people of other nations; 95 percent of those surveyed expressed a belief in God and a huge majority believed the Ten Commandments had real meaning in their lives. And another study has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of adultery, teenage sex, pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And this same study showed a deep reverence for the importance of family ties and religious belief.
I think the items that we’ve discussed here today must be a key part of the nation’s political agenda. For the first time the Congress is openly and seriously debating and dealing with the prayer and abortion issues and that’s enormous progress right there. I repeat: America is in the midst of a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal. And with your biblical keynote, I say today, “Yes, let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.”
Now, obviously, much of this new political and social consensus I’ve talked about is based on a positive view of American history, one that takes pride in our country’s accomplishments and record. But we must never forget that no government schemes are going to perfect man. We know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.
There is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal. The glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war is now a point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.
I know that you’ve been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups preaching bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing of your churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given us is clear and simple: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
But whatever sad episodes exist in our past, any objective observer must hold a positive view of American history, a history that has been the story of hopes fulfilled and dreams made into reality. Especially in this century, America has kept alight the torch of freedom, but not just for ourselves but for millions of others around the world.
And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as president, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas — that’s their name for religion — or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.
Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates a historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s. We see it too often today.
This doesn’t mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now proposes 50 percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.
The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.
I would agree to a freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets’ global desires. A freeze at current levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed. Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.
A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. And an honest freeze would require extensive prior negotiations on the systems and numbers to be limited and on the measures to ensure effective verification and compliance. And the kind of a freeze that has been suggested would be virtually impossible to verify. Such a major effort would divert us completely from our current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions.
A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the cold war, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people’s minds. And he was speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, “I love my little girls more than anything.” And I said to myself, “Oh, no, don’t. You can’t — don’t say that.” But I had underestimated him. He went on: “I would rather see my little girls die now; still believing in God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God.”
There were thousands of young people in that audience. They came to their feet with shouts of joy. They had instantly recognized the profound truth in what he had said, with regard to the physical and the soul and what was truly important.
Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness. Pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.
It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable Screw Tape Letters, wrote: “The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered; moved, seconded, carried and minuted in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”
Well, because these quiet men do not raise their voices, because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they’re always making “their final territorial demand,” some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.
So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority. You know, I’ve always believed that old Screw Tape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the Church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride –the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.
I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our efforts, this administration’s efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and verifiable reductions in the world’s nuclear arsenals and one day, with God’s help, their total elimination.
While America’s military strength is important, let me add here that I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.
Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversion made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in communism’s attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second-oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, “Ye shall be as gods.”
The Western world can answer this challenge, he wrote, “but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism’s faith in Man.”
I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last — last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: “He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increased strength. But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary. “
Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, “We have it within our power to begin the world over again.” We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.
God bless you and thank you very much.
sursa: americanrhetoric.com
trimite unui prieten
Care este singura metoda de iesire din criza?
Majoritatea economistilor sunt de acord ca masurile de stimuli financiari, nemaintalnite in timp de pace, era neaparat necesar pentru scoaterea din recesiune atat a tarilor dezvoltate, cat si a celor emergente, crezand ca si strategia de exit va fi simpla.
Insa acest lucru nu este posibil, neexistand metode usoare de a renunta la pachetele de stimuli, fara efecte negative importante, crede analistul Martin Wolf.
Trebuie luat in considerare faptul ca sectorul privat cheltuie, in prezent, mult mai putin decat castiga. Astfel, potrivit Organizatiei pentru Cooperare si Dezvoltare Economica (OCDE), in sase tari dintre statele membre - Olanda, Elvetia, Suedia, Japonia, Marea Britanie si Irlanda - sectorul privat va avea un surplus ce va reprezenta 10% din produsul intern brut, in acest an.
De asemenea, in alte 13 tari, surplusul se va situa intre 5 si 10% din PIB, Statele Unite avand 7,3%, iar zona euro 6,7%. Per total, tarile OCDE vor avea un surplus de 7,4% din PIB.
Nu in ultimul rand, deficitele bugetare au crescut ametitor in ultimii ani, iar, daca guvernele ar fi incercat sa le mentina sub control in timpul recesiunii, criza ar fi devenit cel putin la fel de grava precum cea din anii 1930.
Prin urmare, ce strategie de exit am putea adopta, se intreaba Martin Wolf, intr-un comentariu pentru Financial Times.
O mare parte din raspuns se afla in faptul ca dezvoltarea economica din ultimii 30 de ani s-a bazat pe asa-numitele “baloane”. La baza lor s-a aflat creditarea masiva, un balon care s-a spart in 2008. Acesta este motivul din cauza caruia cheltuielile mediului privat au implodat, iar deficitele fiscale au explodat.
Potrivit lui William White, fost economist sef la Bank for International Settlements, bancile centrale au mentinut ratele dobanzii de politica monetara la un nivel scazut pentru prea mult timp, rezultand intr-o explozie a creditelor, dar si a deficitelor.
Pe langa credite, a exista un balon al imobiliarelor si al bursei, un dezechilibru al bilanturilor din sectorul financiar si o expunere prea mare la risc.
Desi nu numai politicile fiscale au fost de vina pentru recesiune, ele au avut un rol foarte important. Indiferent, acest lucru trebuia sa aiba un sfarsit, care s-a manifestat sub forma recesiunii.
Dupa implozie, au ramas doar doua alternative: succesul sau esecul. Prin succes se intelege reluarea creditarii in tarile cu venituri mari. Astfel, sectorul privat va reinncepe sa cheltuie, iar deficitele fiscale se vor miscora.
Pe de alta parte, esecul ar insemna sa nu existe cheltuieli, iar deficitele fiscale ar fi din ce in ce mai mari, pentru o perioada de timp mai lunga decat ne-am putea imagina.
Pentru a scapa de problema datoriilor, fara a intra in colaps, ar trebui fie majorate investitiile publice, fie o crestere a cererii din partea tarilor emergente.
Acest lucru ar presupune regandirea intregului sistem. In tari precum Marea Britanie si Statele Unite, ar exista un deficit fiscal pentru o perioada indelungata, dar si investitii masive. De asemenea, tarile bogate ar fi nevoite sa investeasca pe pietele emergente.
Din pacate, nimeni nu este pregatit pentru o astfel de strategie, crede analistul, toata lumea sperand ca lucrurile vor reveni la “normalul” de dinainte de criza. Dar acest lucru nu mai este posibil si nici nu ar trebui sa se intample.
Cu exceptia Chinei, care are nevoie doar de consum mai mare, restul tarilor ar trebui sa investeasca masiv, atat in mediul privat, cat si cel public. Astfel, s-ar evita cresterea economica bazata pe credite, care s-a dovedit a fi nesustenabila.
trimite unui prieten
Tratatul dispretului fata de cetatean
Guvernul a gasit reteta miraculoasa a iesirii Romaniei din criza asta blestemata. Reducerea cheltuielilor publice. Cu orice pret. Austeritatea a devenit de la inceputul anului cuvantul de ordine al unei Puteri ce se indeparteaza in fiecare zi de nevoile populatiei. Nu mai exista niciun dram de responsabilitate, de decenta, de intelegere a realitatii in care traim. Jugul fiscalitatii inchide firmele una dupa alta. Numarul somerilor creste vertiginos. Pensiile si alocatiile au devenit bataia de joc a guvernantilor. Acolo, la Palatul Victoria, se testeaza rezistenta romanilor. Dar daca am taia alocatiile copiilor din familiile instarite? Daca am impozita toate pensiile, nu numai pe cele speciale? Voci razlete se aud din interiorul Guvernului. Nu exista o consultare prealabila cu colegii din executiv, nu ia nimeni in calcul faptul ca, poate, la auzul acestor ineptii, inimile multor pensionari incep sa bata mai repede. Cui foloseste, domnilor guvernanti, aceasta bataie de joc continua la adresa parintilor, copiilor si bunicilor nostri? Cine va da dreptul sa calcati in picioare ultimul strop de demnitate al unei largi plaje de categorii sociale?
Dispretul guvernarii se regaseste la tot pasul. In drama pensionarilor, profesorilor, functionarilor publici, minerilor, ceferistilor, angajatilor din sistemul privat. Destine umane sunt strivite in lupte politice absurde, ce nu servesc decat orgoliilor si intereselor liderilor. Povara neajunsurilor duce la situatii dramatice. Tineri si batrani renunta la viata, scufundati in probleme pe care le considera fara rezolvare. Nu cred ca vreunul dintre guvernantii actuali - in frunte cu Boc, Berceanu, Udrea, Videanu sau Blaga - a incercat vreo clipa sa se puna in locul unui parinte, proaspat disponibilizat, care nu are ce pune pe masa copiilor sai. Acolo, in lumea Puterii, a celor influenti care se amagesc ca au dreptul de a decide cu o singura semnatura soarta a zeci de mii de oameni, criza se vede in alt mod. Totul se reduce la cifre statistice, la obligatia “prostimii” de a mai strange inca o data si inca o data cureaua.
Ei nu vor renunta niciodata, de bunavoie, la privilegii, imunitate, la statutul de demnitar. Vor continua sa rezolve criza prin discursuri demagogice, tinand strans de haturile guvernarii. Sedintele de guvern au devenit locul in care se afiseaza ceasuri de zeci de mii de euro si genti de firma. Pe de alta parte, cand averea personala sau a familiei depaseste cu mult posibilitatile unui bugetar ca tine, chiar cu salariu de ministru sau parlamentar, incepi sa te temi. De pierderea Puterii, a privilegiilor, de faptul ca fara imunitate poti fi somat sa dai explicatii. Pe care, din pacate, nu le ai. Asa ca te prinzi in continuare in hora murdara a compromisurilor politice. Joci la doua capete. Incerci sa te pliezi in functie de conjunctura. Notiunea de clasa politica a fost aruncata in derizoriu de politicienii ultimilor 20 de ani. Compromisa iremediabil, clasa politica ar trebui sa se recunoasca invinsa. In fata propriilor obsesii de marire. De altfel, alesii nu inceteaza sa scrie, in fiecare zi, inca un rand si inca unul la tratatul dispretului fata de cetatean…
Iulian Badea
sursa: cronicaromana.ro
trimite unui prieten
vizitatori unici
Primeste articolele direct in mail.
