Forum

Un chroniqueur de Newsmax n’hésite pas à soulever l’hypothèse d’un coup d’Etat militaire pour “résoudre le problème Obama”. L’article a été supprimé des colonnes de ce site, mais capturé avant sa disparition ici :
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/archive.php

http://contreinfo.info/article.php3?id_article=2832

Pendant ce temps, Ron Paul le libertarien texan et Bernie Sanders le socialiste du Vermont continuent tranquillement de grignoter en interne les fondations du frauduleux système dollar, en poursuivant leur manoeuvre pour obtenir l’audit de la Fed.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110011#
“Paul said his legislation, because of its majority support, could be brought up as a separate plan but then might have more hurdles in the Senate and could even face a veto from President Obama.

He said a more logical scenario is including it in a package of proposals now being developed to correct problems revealed in the recent economic downturn that would include a variety of other consumer protections. “

Ils prévoient donc de faire passer cette mesure dans un projet de loi économique plus vaste, de manière à faire obstacle à un barrage du Sénat ou à un véto d’Obama, qui va subir d’autant plus de pression et sera vraisemblablement perdant quoiqu’il fasse : soit il apparaîtra comme ouvertement complice du système Fed qui pille l’Amérique, soit comme celui qui aura ouvert la boîte de Pandore.

Why Stable Defense Spending Is A Fantasy
Author: Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. Date: Monday, October 5, 2009
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/why-stable-defense-spending-is-a-fantasy?a=1&c=1171
Defense secretary Robert Gates has repeatedly stated that his goal for the Pentagon’s future budgets is to maintain stable spending after inflation. That certainly seems necessary if the Pentagon is to achieve the prevail-prevent-preserve-prepare goals set forth on the Quadrennial Defense Review. But Gates will have to abandon his plans to depart government service anytime soon and get ready to fight tooth and nail for stable military spending, because fiscal pressures are rising fast. In the absence of some urgent new threat, it’s hard to see how defense outlays could do anything other than fall in the years ahead.
Most observers now recognize that President Obama doesn’t care much about defense, and is more interested in the domestic initiatives that you would expect a former community organizer to be pursuing. Beyond that, we’ve been hearing about the budgetary consequences of baby-boomers retiring for years. But the really big challenge the government will face in sustaining current levels of military outlays results from an under-performing economy. This part of the puzzle is barely grasped at all by most policymakers.

When the current decade began, the U.S. economy was generating about a third of global output and the federal government was sustaining about a third of global military spending. Today, the U.S. share of global output has shrunk to about a quarter, while the U.S. share of global military spending—according to Gates—has risen to nearly 50%. It should be obvious to anybody that 5% of the world’s population isn’t going to continue sustaining 50% of global military outlays while only generating 25% of global output. The waning strength of the economy translates into a shrunken tax base that cannot support the current scale of federal spending, and defense is one of the items that will have to fall.

The mid-year review released by the Office of Management and Budget in late August provided a disturbing picture of just how severe fiscal pressures have become. Some people were heartened by the fact that the projected deficit fell $262 billion in fiscal 2009, to $1,580 billion. But the review also raised projected deficits by an average of over $200 billion in each of the subsequent six years. In fact, the projected deficit for fiscal 2010 is now similar in size to that for 2009, meaning the government will continue spending over $4 billion each day that it does not have. Interest payments on the accumulated debt already exceed $500 billion annually, but if interest rates rise even moderately while the debt keeps ballooning, then annual interest payments could top a trillion dollars by the end of Obama’s current term. It would take a very big threat indeed to keep defense spending stable in these circumstances.

Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

On voit de plus en plus apparaitre les veritables chiffres du chomage US dans MSM.
ci dessous dans le Whashington Times, plutot néocon, il y a 2jours ; notez le “In reality” du dernier paraagraphe. On est loin des néocons qui “font la réalité”  pendant que les journaux décrivent ce qui se fait.
A priori tous les chiffres viennent de http://www.shadowstats.com

EDITORIAL: Jobless rate hits 17 percent

THE WASHINGTON TIMES   Tuesday, October 6, 2009
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/06/jobless-rate-hits-17-percent/

America’s jobless crisis is much worse than the 9.8 percent unemployment rate reported Friday. To understand how there are many more unemployed than the government reports, it’s necessary to look at the numbers used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate the unemployment rate. The Household Survey numbers paint a bleak picture that no one is discussing.

In September, the economy saw a net loss of 785,000 jobs. This amounts to twice the 392,000 loss in August and five times the 155,000 loss in July. This does not jibe with the Obama administration’s talking points, which are parroted by most of the news media, namely that unemployment is not a major concern because job losses supposedly are getting smaller each month.

In August, the unemployment rate was reported to be 9.7 percent. It takes a lesson in how government measures unemployment to understand why it’s possible for the unemployment rate to rise merely a tenth of one percent when 785,000 jobs have been lost. If someone has given up actively looking for a job, the government does not count that person among those who are jobless. Some of these people may have been unsuccessfully looking for a job for a year, but as soon as they stop actively looking, they are no longer unemployed.

This number of discouraged workers has risen dramatically. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 807,000 additional people stopped looking for work last month. This constitutes by far the largest monthly drop in the number of people who don’t consider themselves to be in the labor force during the past year during this recession. It is almost six times the 143,000 increase in the people who left the labor force during August and five times the average monthly increase of 161,000 over the past year.

There is a second reason the unemployment rate is much worse than these numbers imply. People find jobs during the last few weeks that they have unemployment benefits. But what is happening right now is that many people are taking part-time jobs. When counting the number of people officially considered unemployed as well as those who have recently given up looking for work and those who have taken low-paying part-time jobs because they can’t find full-time work, the unemployment rate for September is 17 percent.

Discouraged workers will look for work once the economy starts to improve, but the 7.2 percentage point gap between the publicly discussed unemployment rate and these discouraged workers is unusually large. For many Americans, the dire straits are going to get much worse soon. In July, 102,670 people saw their unemployment benefits run out. That number rose to 141,538 in August and soared to 486,049 in September. This figure will keep rising each month and is on pace to hit 1.5 million in December alone.

Yesterday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “The economic team is certainly looking at and working on any way that we can create more jobs.” This is a very misleading statement because it makes it sound as if the Obama administration is responsible for creating a net increase in jobs when the economy has been bleeding jobs on its watch.
In reality, 3.2 million Americans have lost jobs since President Obama took office. Political spin won’t convince the growing masses of unemployed that recovery is around the corner.

L’ennui c’est qu’une part de notre destin se joue là-bas, la bonne nouvelle c’est que les élites françaises et européennes semblent commencer à comprendre.  A temps, espérons le.

Québec—-> Libre.

L’affaire est considérée comme suffisemment sérieuse pour que le FT ponde un long article sur la menace.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/28db4010-b377-11de-ae8d-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Morceaux choisis, parmi d’autres :
“Most economists argue there is something worth preserving. “I think Congress has to be very careful in changing its relationship with the Federal Reserve so as not to affect the independence of the Fed, actual or even just perceived,” says Moody’s Mr. Zandi. “Global investors are particularly sensitive to the prospect that the Federal Reserve will be under pressure to monetise all the debt that is being created,” he says. “I think it’s fair to say that the most significant strength of our financial system is the independence of the Fed.”” A mourir de rire, c’est l’opposé exact de la réalité.

On y évoque ouvertement la possibilité d’un démantèlement de la Fed, pour la repousser. Obama s’étant engagé ouvertement du côté de Bernanke lors du renouvellement de son mandat cet été (il avait interrompu ses vacances pour se faire), son sort semble scellé à celui de cette Fed inique. Cette question va sûrement finir par être reprise par le mouvement des “Tea Party”, et Obama s’est mis lui-même sur la sellette.

BHO vient de recevoir le Prix Nobel de la Paix.

Mais qu’a-t-il fait pour l’instant de concret pour sortir de l’ornière:
- les droits des Palestiniens à la survie et à la vie ainsi que la paix avec Israël ?
- l’Irak ?
- l’Afghanistan ?
- les liens diplomatiques avec l’Iran ?
- la paix sociale et la prospérité économique de la Nation et du Monde (ROW) ?

Ca me fait penser à la récompense offerte au camarade Mikhaïl Sergueïevitch Gorbatchev de 1990 au bord de la chute finale.

Et oui cher PEB, je me suis fait exactement la même reflexion! D’un point de vue virtualiste et/ou “communicationnel”, décerner le prix à un homme qui n’a encore aucun bilan mais que des gamelles sur le feu peut être compris comme, au mieux un encouragement, plus cyniquement comme un court-circuitage de son libre arbitre, le forçant (enfin, dirait M Ph. Grasset..) à prendre les décisions de rupture que l’on était en droit d’attendre de lui; mais cela peut également accélérer (le fait insignifiant que M Grasset nous écrit, déclencheur de réactions en chaîne inattendues, de points d’orgue de crises accumulées) son côté Gorbatchev, et là je reviens à la coïncidence d’évènement.  En voulant intervenir de l’extérieur Oslo a donné à Gorbatchev l’énergie cynétique nécessaire pour détruire le système; de même…..

D’un point de vue de la destinée (sic!) je me ferais du soucis si j’étais BHO : les deux chefs d’Etat en fonction ayant précédement bénéficié de ce prix hautement symbolique mais d’autant plus important, ont connu des destins tragiques : Gorbi a fermé la boutique URSS 6 mois après, et Rabin s’est fait descendre par un juif extrêmiste. On mesure donc là tout le tragique de la situation: BHO par mimétisme involontaire, ou malédiction dudit prix, se rapproche tout autant du destin de Gorbi qu’il risque de connaître la même fin que Rabin: les cinglés du KKK et autres sectes para-militaires sur-armées, ne manquent pas aux USA.

Le seul point d’interrogation est l’ordre évènementiel : l’effondrement du pays signerait son arrêt de mort par tel ou tel parti, ou bien son assassinat précipiterait-il le pays dans le chaos? A ce stade, tous les scénrii restent possibles, seule la fin est écrite : la chute de l’Empire.

Merci Vincent.

J’ajoute que l’autorité du Commander-in-Chief est dès à présent sapée.

Le Prix Nobel de la Paix, c’est le Chevalier Blanc des pauvres gens, c’est le bon prince tellement pacifique.

Comment un Prix Nobel de la Paix peut-il envoyer les 40 000 soldats nécessaires? Comment un Prix Nobel de la Paix peut-il conduire une guerre, mener ses boys au combat, remporter une bataille? Sans parler du front intérieur.

Imagine-t-on Ike avec le Prix Nobel de la Paix en 1944?

Soit il ose et ce qu’il reste encore de prestige au Nobel s’envole; soit son action militaire est paralysée et, par là même, la toute-puissance américaine gardienne du temple américaniste. Pile, je perds; face, je ne gagne pas.

Politiquement et symboliquement je serais BHO, j’aurais dit: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes (Des achéens, je crainsles hommes et les présents - au cas particulier, il s’agissait d’Ulysse et du Cheval de Troie). Mais la communication omnipotente va l’obliger à se charger de ce fardeau, lui et l’Armée de l’Union. (Armée de l’Union, ça fait un peu soviétique mais bon, Gorby ne nous en voudra pas.)

Le dindon de la farce sera comme toujours le petit peuple et les soi-disant amis et alliés.

La seule issue serait ou le martyr, ou l’effondrement de l’Union ou les deux.