05 July 2016 ~ 11 Comentarios

¿Comenzó la decadencia norteamericana?

Declaracion-de-independencia-de-EEUU-640x430

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.


Vea en Youtube

11 Responses to “¿Comenzó la decadencia norteamericana?”

  1. Sam Ramos 5 July 2016 at 10:14 am Permalink

    Todo eso que dice CAM es cierto pero si ocurre que en las proximas elecciones para la presidencia de esta nacion los votantes norteamericanos optan por elegir a la aspirante del partido ASNOCRATA, la decadencia que se viene observando se acelerara de una manera muy dificil de parar y diria yo que hasta irreversible.

    Hoy se anuncia que la sonda norteamericana Juno llego a la orbita de Jupiter…descubriran que no hay tripulantes en esa otra nave especial mas grande que la nuestra tan irresponsables como los partidiarios del partido del Burro que viajan junto a nosotros?

  2. Maximiliano Herrera Verdugo 5 July 2016 at 1:02 pm Permalink

    Estoy de acuerdo con CAM. Yo diria lo mismo. ! Larga vida a esa gran nacion !

  3. viadogui 5 July 2016 at 3:09 pm Permalink

    Gracias a Dios que sigue su marcha triunfal contra todo pronostico.
    Como expreso Maximiliano Herrera: Larga Vida a esta Gran Nacion.

  4. Sam Ramos 5 July 2016 at 5:22 pm Permalink

    Ya tenemos otro calificativo para la aspirante del Partido Asnocrata y no fue adjudicado por sus opositores sino nada menos que por el Director del FBI. Asi que a partir de ahora Trump le agregara al “Corrupt Hillary”, el mas oficial de EXTREMELY CARELESS. Es muy curioso que la Jefa del Director del FBI, la controvertida Attorney General, se haya reunido muy recientemente con el siempre fiel maridito de la aspirante en un avion para hablar de “los nietos y de golf” solo una semana antes de que fuera entrevistada por 3 horas y media por el FBI y que en solo dos dias incluyendo el festivo del 4 de Julio, despues de ese interrogatorio, el FBI haya tomado la decision de no recomendar su encausamiento. Los expertos dicen que una cosa asi requereria de mas tiempo para ser serios en las conclusiones.

    En los analisis hechos por CAM donde se definen los pasos que los dictadores realizan para aumentar su poder, se menciona el apoderamiento del Sistema Judicial para que este actue a favor del gobierno y con este ejemplo nos podemos dar cuenta de que eso se esta haciendo por la actual administracion cuando vemos que el FBI no aplica la ley a todos por el igual sino solo a conveniencia de sus jefes y por los que estos le indiquen.

    Vi una conversacion o entrevista que le hicieron a Rudolf Giulanni en la TV y este dijo que con esa calificacion hecha por el FBI de Extremely Careless para manejar documentos secretos, no se le pudiera otorgar la confianza a ningun individuo por lo que seria una violacion de un articulo que el menciono que regula esa actividad y que no recuerdo ahora. Tambien dijo que esa esa violacion hecha por la Killary es un delito que no prescribe y que si gana Trump-oloco, este pudiera nombrar a alguien que si encuentre logico el hacerlo y no como dice el Director del FBI que opina no se puede encontrar a nadie que lo haga.
    Con esta decision la Killary puede que haya escapado judcialmente de ese asunto, pero politicamente es otro argumento mas en contra de ella por su negligencia.

  5. Sam Ramos 5 July 2016 at 5:30 pm Permalink

    Se me paso agregar en mi comentario anterior que esa decision del FBI es un indicio mas de la decadencia de este pais y de darse el caso, que opino es muy probable que ocurra y ya he dicho antes el por que pienso asi sera, de que gane la presidencia la Killary, estas situaciones se convertiran en algo mas habitual dada la historia de la vida publica y hasta personal de esta candidata.

    • Sam Ramos 6 July 2016 at 8:14 am Permalink

      Esto no lo escribi yo pero lo comparto como muestra de la decadencia o deterioro que esta sucediendo ahora mismo en la moralidad y principios civicos de esta nacion:

      SUMMARY:
      She was found to be “reckless” in handling top secret OR classified info
      She was found to be “extremely
      careless” in handling top secret and classified information. “Extremely careless” is often mixed w/ term “GROSS NEGLIGENCE”
      “Any REASONABLE PERSON in such a position SHOULD
      HAVE KNOWN the info by content alone was highly classified /even TOP SECRET”
      Her lawyers wiped out 3000 emails & then sterilized their computers.
      She used blackberry & other UNPROTECTED devices
      [‘On trips to hostile nations where highly trained “HOSTILEACTORS” are w/the best equipment likely hacked her
      There was no “intent”… so that
      means she was totally IGNORANT AND SLOPPY OR incompetent .
      They found evidence, but no PRECEDENT for
      such a case that a prosecutor could use in a prosecuting
      (Translation: there was evidence of her breaking the law but
      not a “preponderance of” and no “precedent-setting” case. Thus would be VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANY REASONABLE PROSECUTOR TO CONVICT
      Q: SHOULD SHE LOSE HER TOP SECURITY CLEARANCE?
      Q: IS THIS THE TYPE OF SLOPPY, CARELESS, INCOMPETENT , RECKLESS WOMAN U WANT TO LEAD OUR NATION?
      Q: What is the difference between the terms
      “GROSS NEGLIGENCE” and “EXTREME CARELESSNESSNESS…? NO DIFF.

      We are a nation of laws.
      Constitutional and STATUTE law.
      THERE IS A 3RD BOOK OF LAWS
      CLINTONIAN LAW.

  6. Sam Ramos 6 July 2016 at 10:24 am Permalink

    The rigged system may have helped Hillary Clinton escape criminal charges, but the FBI Director did indict her today for her incredible lack of judgment and honesty. Watch her LIE over and over again. Unbelievable!

    https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/

  7. jose gonzalez 6 July 2016 at 12:11 pm Permalink

    Yo sigo pensando que Estados Unidos es el mejor de los mundos posibles.

  8. Sam Ramos 6 July 2016 at 4:30 pm Permalink

    CLINTON/COMEY 2016

    By Corey Uhden

    If The Director of the FBI Can’t Resist The Clintons, Who Can?

    What brainpower it would take to write a story like this one: a power couple rises through the ranks of politics ruthlessly corrupting every facet of government at every level to benefit an unholy cabal of cronies, and gets away with it.

    There is no denying that the Clintons directly inspired Netflix’s approach to remaking House of Cards. If there is one criticism of the show, though, it’s that it is pretty far off the mark from reality. In the show, Kevin Spacey’s character fights for reelection against Heather Dunbar, the Former U.S. Solicitor General, that prosecutes him for a serious crime and gets so angry when he gets away with it that she runs against him on a campaign message of restoring balance and integrity in government.

    In reality, FBI Director James Comey isn’t about to challenge to Hillary Clinton for the Presidency.

    The show dispatches of such a juicy storyline with a tawdry tale of normal politics but my lament always was that, in reality, there is no Heather Dunbar. It seemed like a quaint storytelling device for liberal writers to pretend that The Department of Justice could be impartial. If so, they’re going to seriously enjoy dismantling their main characters as the reality plays out very differently.

    Comey blinked. If and when Hillary Clinton returns to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next January, some will say she owes it to him, and Vice President would make a nice consolation prize, but this has been years in the making.

    SNL nearly nailed this one: “I wasn’t born yesterday. I was born 67 years ago and I’ve been planning on being President ever since!” “Nice try! but this is not how Hillary Clinton goes down.”

    No, no chance of that. She deleted the emails, destroyed the private server, and stood in front of the smoldering remains telling investigators and the public, “there is no smoking gun.”

    The FBI agreed:

    What could have possibly compelled the professionals at the Federal Bureau of Investigation to announce that the Former Secretary of State may have committed some serious crimes and likely compromised national security, but they don’t think “any reasonable prosecutor” would take the case? At this point, that is their only excuse. They were intimidated by the prospect of facing Hillary Clinton, a future President with plenty of staffing decisions to make, and an army of future Supreme Court nominees alleging a sexist witch hunt in court, and in the court of public opinion.

    The nation appears to be going through somewhat of a revival of interest in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. That was 1994; the Clintons were in the White House. Did they watch too? What were they thinking?

    Might they have learned a lesson from O.J.’s acquittal? Justice can be bought.

    If The Director of the FBI can’t resist the corrupt empire of a power couple, who can?

    When Mr. Comey was first nominated for the position of Director, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow swelled with glee as she regaled for her viewers the tale of a young James Comey nearly resigning to avoid authorizing a wiretap program in 2004. Less than a week later, Comey, a Republican, was approved by the U.S. Senate 99–1. Here was the embodiment of impartial justice, an incorruptible agent of The People that had refused to honor a request from Dick Cheney at the hospital bedside of an ailing Attorney General. Surely, if a government official, any government official, thought they would avoid accountability, Comey would set them straight.

    Guess not.

    With excruciating clarity, Comey put on a master class performance of a Clintonesque legal defense. Yes, Hillary Clinton committed crimes that would normally be punishable, but will go unpunished. Comey relayed the most important distinction — the difference between “gross negligence” and “extreme” carelessness. The difference, it turns out, is one is a prosecutable offense and the other is whatever the Clintons did.

    It’s good to be a Clinton, with one set of laws for them and one set of laws for everyone else. So much for the Republic. Strike “justice for all” from the pledge with nothing less than this, “a blow to the very heart of our democracy.”

    The Secretary of State might have been using her private email server to facilitate the arms deals that would eventually amount to $165 billion for Clinton Foundation donors, twice as much as they received during President Bush’s administration. She might have been using it to cut deals with foreign corporations to buy American uranium. She claims that she never sent or received classified information through this arrangement, but the FBI says that is a blatant lie, so it’s no wonder what else she could have been doing with a homebrew server. That might be of interest to a Constitutional Republic in which men and women are elected to a place called Congress that supposedly conducts oversight on behalf of constituents that have to follow something “the law”, but the FBI says it’s not something they’ll be revealing anytime soon. Not that they could, Clinton didn’t archive her emails, and demolished the hardware.

    Nevermind that the subject of this fifteen-month-long investigation is vying for the highest elected office in the country and asking to be put in charge of a vast apparatus that has its tentacles in every facet of the world economy. Just what the Secretary of State was “extremely carelessly” doing on a private server is just not relevant says the FBI.

    The Speaker’s Office has already filed a Freedom of Information (FOIA) Request. How quaint of Paul Ryan to think a normal character is going to play some kind of role in bringing down the Clintons’ house of cards. There will be a loud roar to appoint a Special Prosecutor and have Clinton testify to Congress under oath, but if the public paid attention to the regular dealings of public service, they might recognize that it bears no resemblance to the frought business of politics or criminal law. If the FBI didn’t want to challenge Clinton to a public bout, what would make the Republicans running for reelection eager to bear the brunt of allegations of being politically motivated, sexist, and wasting taxpayer money? Appointing a special prosecutor to investigate this investigation might be worthwhile, but what if Hillary wins the White House? It would literally fall to her to decide whether or not to continue investigating herself.

    There’s a fascinating tale of espionage and deceit here that would strike at the very principles on which the nation was Founded. Indeed, no foreign power could conceive of a more perfect plan to undermine the rule of law and sow discontent across the public. But, in this case, it’s all wrapped up in less than sinister intentions. This is just how the Clintons operate.

    If and when Hillary Clinton is elected President, the Senate is going to have establish a standing committee to investigate every one of her decisions, every appointment, every trade deal, treaty, and executive directive to see how it might benefit her, Bill, Chelsea, and the hundreds of thousands of influence-peddlers that comprise a unholy cabal of corruption best regarded as Clinton Incorporated.

    And Clinton INC. just beat the FBI.

    It seems there isn’t a department of government that can avoid being remodeled into a tool of the of the Clintons’ vast empire. After all, a President Clinton and her appointees will have a few staffing decisions to make, including at the FBI. She may be a wholly unlikeable, ruthlessly ambitious, tin-eared politician but Hillary Clinton has made quite the career out of something that used to be regarded as a public service. Bill the charmer, it’s only fitting that the cold, calculated Hillary has to rely on the minutiae of the machine to complete her mission.

    And what about President Obama? He appointed her Secretary of State. He beat her to the Presidency, yet here he is cleaning up her mess while her husband has been off galavanting across the globe, cashing in on nostalgia for his presidency, and even earning some credit for helping the President get reelected. With the Democratic Party set to officially nominate Hillary this summer, there can be no doubt left that the Obama progressives only managed to wrest control of the party temporarily. Billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker, currently Secretary of Commerce, better prepare her application to Clinton INC. They have their sights set on this Washington Favor Factory — there’s a lot of money to be made buying and selling access to the billions funneled through Washington bureaucracies.

    And the Republican Party? Faced with the prospect of unleashing unprecedented corruption, they nominate …one of her donors!?! That incestuous class of influence peddlers? It includes Donald J. Trump. And it wouldn’t be any less corrupted in his tiny palms. The RNC should be meeting in two weeks to issue a national apology for exalting the least credible and demonstrably unqualified candidate to be the only alternative to four or eight more years of Clinton. The only thing worse than Clinton drama? Trump drama, more often conveyed to viewers as “reality TV”, this time with nuclear weapons!

    Then there’s the Attorney General, Comey’s boss, Loretta Lynch, who just so happened to meet with Former President Bill Clinton on a private plane in Phoenix less than a week before the FBI’s announcement. Though, they “definitely didn’t” talk about any investigations into his wife’s behavior, nope, they definitely didn’t talk about that, they assure us. Lynch is ultimately responsible for deciding if Clinton will be indicted, but she supposedly outsourced the decision to Comey and he took the opportunity to stage an nearly unprecedented press conference to assert the independence of the FBI, and his own, or at least leave the appearance of some sort of integrity intact. Might a news report that surfaced over the weekend that Clinton would be inclined to keep Lynch on as Attorney General have been prompted by a meeting between the candidate’s spouse and the AG currently overseeing such an investigation? I guess the American voter is going to have to wait until they elect her to find out.

    Think about the hypotheticals then! What? If Hillary keeps Lynch, and/or Comey, will it just be appropriate payback for not indicting her? And if she lets one of them go, hell, could it be because they let an investigation get this far in the first place? Or, in Comey’s case, could it possibly be because he dared to contradict her official response?

    This is the razor’s edge of politics in 2016. Everyone gets sliced standing still and crossing the rubicon is to unleash a torrential avalanche either way. It’s either the Clintons, the whole Clintons, and nothing but the crooked, corrupt Clinton INC. or handing the levers of power to Donald Trump.

    In a normal election, we’d have the Democratic Party, which doesn’t represent Democratic voters, but instead represents an elite realm of millionaires and billionaires that benefit from government largess. Clinton INC. is just the largest conglomerate of these influencers. And we’d have the Republican Party, a party that represents a Chamber of Commerce agenda that might benefit corporations of all sizes but has little on offer for a country dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.

    That we could live with. That would be disappointing, even dispiriting, and enraging, and it’s probably the best justification for the Bernie Sanders campaign, but it’s normal, it’s routine, and it would only take a dramatic reassertion of Constitutional limitations to restore some balance, or the status quo. Instead the choice is between Clinton INC., which is apparently more powerful than the FBI, and an incompetent blowhard that managed to earn the nomination of a major political party.

    There’s a reason Republicans are so dismayed over Trump’s impending nomination. He’s not running an effective campaign, losing badly and unable to fix it. In fact, their greatest hope was to plaster headlines bearing “Criminal Indictment” all over social media from now until November, or until Hillary is hauled off to prison. That hope extinguished, they’re pushing Comey’s statements proving her a liar all over the web to suggest that it’s politically toxic for their opponents. “She was convicted, if not indicted” remarked conservative radio host/law professor Hugh Hewitt. True, but “she wasn’t indicted!” is a perfectly suitable response in politics. That will not affect the outcome of the general election; if Barack Obama could get away with referencing “acts of terror” to cover up lying about the events in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton will get away with “reckless, but not criminal” for sure.

    The media is soon set to anoint the Clinton campaign the luckiest political campaign ever, but this isn’t luck. It’s a machine that would make Tammany Hall appear honest. Richard Nixon’s estate wants the suffix “gate” forever affixed to the Clintons. They’ve earned it. And they’re on their way back to Washington, with a 240-year-old Republic that hangs in the balance. If this is what they’ll do to win the White House, wait until you see what they have planned to keep it.

    James Comey is Hillary’s de facto running-mate now. Hand him an FEC document for filing the biggest in-kind contribution of his life to Clinton INC. Now, voters just have to wait to find out what he gets in return, and await the next shoe to drop in a drama that Netflix writers only wish they could conceive.

  9. guillermo 7 July 2016 at 6:13 am Permalink

    Dice Juan Manuel de Prada que cuando el progreso se antepone a las necesidades morales y espirituales, llegando a sepultarlas la decadencia de esa civilización ya ha comenzado y que con frecuencia muestran un aspecto falsamente saludables, o sea un esplendor con pies de barro sostenido sobre un progreso puramente material y que produce hastío, cansancio y un malestar sin forma…

  10. Sam Ramos 8 July 2016 at 12:20 am Permalink

    Watch Trey Gowdy DESTROY FBI Director Comey’s Stance In Minutes

    Posted at 12:30 pm on July 7, 2016 by Brandon Morse

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTJwmC_5aTU


Leave a Reply