MALES DO MUNDO

Porque foi Obama eleito há quatro anos? Porque: a) é mulato, b) tem o dom da palavra, c) fez promessas aos pontapés.

Agora, depois quatro anos sem cumprir, nem aquelas que estavam na sua exclusiva mão, como a história de Guantanamo,(diz que a culpa é do congresso) ou como a retirada do Iraque, nem as outras, como a descida do défice, a criação de emprego, a celebérrima reforma do health care e tantas outras, volta a apresentar-se aos eleitores guardando como trunfos, já não velhas ou novas promessas, mas explorando à saciedade as alíneas a) e b). De resto, a sua obra está à vista. No exterior, não resolveu um único problema. Debate-se com os que herdou e arranjou mais uns. Internamente, conseguiu malcontentar os que dele tudo esperavam e pouco ou nada obtiveram. Resta, pois, a verve, a cor e a mulher, esta com jeito para a popularidade e para dizer umas coisas à multidão.

Tem outro importante trunfo. O adversário que, além de pertencer a uma seita religiosa que causa as maiores dúvidas, se apoia no que há de ideologicamente mais retrógrado, o que lhe torna virtualmente impossível conquistar votos no campo do presidente. Internacionalmente mais “agessivo” (parole parole) , internamente mais conservador (de quê, se até aceita certas “reformas” do adversário, nem que seja para americano ver?).

Desgraçadamente para ele, o politicamente correcto, lá como cá, tem uma força tremenda. Bush foi mau por causa do Katrina (cujos vestígios já são raros), Obama é um herói por causa do Sandy. Como cá, todos os dias, com tudo. Citemos um exemplo comezinho, triste se não fosse ridículo: em São Tomé, em visita formal, Soares pôs-se em fato de banho e, perante os engravatados dignitários locais, foi dar uma mergulhaça nas salsas e tépidas ondas: para os media, um herói. Mais tarde, em férias, Cavaco subiu a um coqueiro: para os mesmos, uma atitude patética, risível e indigna. Se o governo socialista corta verbas no Estado “social”, coitado, não havia outra solução. Se o governo não é de esquerda, então tais cortes são um crime de lesa-pátria, uma coisa “salazarenta” até, pelo menos na opinião de dos maiores alarves a que a nossa democracia dá guarida. E assim por diante.

Romney é vítima da mesma “correcção”. Não se pense, porém – as sondagens são claras – que os americanos reagem como os “progressistas” europeus.

Obama, entre nós, seria um reaccionário dos piores. O que não impede a nossa pobre intelligentsia de o considerar um revolucionário e de lhe tecer as maiores loas. Saloios!

O problema da América é o mesmo que o nosso. Mais cedo ou mais tarde, o défice, a dívida, a austeridade, caem-lhe em cima. E se o dólar entrar em colapso, o que não é tão impossível como possa parecer? Hecatombe americana, hecatombe universal.

Trunfo será a inesgotável capacidade de trabalho dos americanos, a resiliência das suas estruturas sociais, a espantosa vitalidade da sua sociedade civil. Mas, por muitos anos e maus, as coisas vão ser difícies.

Com Obama ou com Romney.

Venha o diabo e escolha.

5.11.12

António Borges de Carvalho

4 comentários

A c 07.11.2012

Fundamentally Transforming” the U.S. Into the Soviet States of America
Written by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
font size Print
Four years ago during an October 30, 2008 campaign speech at Missouri University, then U.S. Senator Barack Obama told a crowd of about 40,000 students, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Understandably, many conservatives scrutinized this comment because the idea of fundamentally transforming the United States of America is upsetting to anyone who cherishes basic American values.
Obama’s comment, however, shined a light on the more extreme feelings that were embedded deep within the left-leaning members of the Democratic Party, stemming from a radical leftist platform that started brewing in the 1960s. It is a platform that has now come to fruition out in the open in the form of the "New Democratic Party" and its leader is Barack Obama.
The New Democratic Party heralds a view often popularized by the Soviet Union that the United States is an imperialistic superpower using its war machine to exploit the resources and people of Third World countries — that capitalism is evil and America is the world bully.
Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign made it acceptable for far-leaning leftists who once masked themselves as “liberals” to finally, openly declare that they believe capitalism is evil. Instead of mainstream Democratic leaders resisting this platform they embraced it after they realized that it energized their base.
Democrats decided that in order to regain credibility around the world we should apologize for U.S. global hegemony, that we should also apologize for America being America, and to do that we would have to send a clear signal to other countries that we were willing to change.
In Barack Obama the Left found a leader who truly harbored the fundamental principles they had championed ever since the 1960s. Because his leftist views came from the heart, Obama was able to effectively convince millions of Americans that it was cache to criticize their own country as a way of endearing themselves to the rest of the world.
Senator Marco Rubio crystallized Obama’s views in his speech at the Republican National Convention. He said that Obama promotes “ideas that people come to America to get away from … ideas that threaten to make America more like the rest of the world, instead of the rest of the world becoming more like America.”
To break it down in actual political terms, President Obama does not believe in the fundamental American view of freedom, which is based on individual rights. He believes in the contradictory notion of collective rights, which is how freedom was defined in the Soviet Union.
Simply put, American freedom is the freedom to do things. Soviet "freedom" was defined by the false notion that freedom was freedom from things like hardship and poverty by guaranteeing health care, employment and rent-free housing — basic "rights" found in the 1936 Soviet Constitution.
With the rise of Barack Obama, more and more Americans are admitting that they would prefer to trade in their individual freedom for collective security, and they don’t mind the fact that the president plans to achieve his goals the same way the Soviet Union did.
In 1998, Barack Obama admitted, “I actually believe in wealth redistribution,” and in 2001 he complained to a Chicago radio station that “the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”
Like his 2008 comment in which he said he wanted to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” the wealth redistribution comments alarmed conservatives, and with good reason.
Some of the president’s supporters have argued that the United States has always redistributed wealth through taxes. There may be a sliver of truth to that, but overall, taxes are used to pay for federal infrastructure. Wealth redistribution is primarily designed so that money is taken from one class and paid to another.
What the president’s supporters fail to recognize is that there is something suspect about the president refraining from using the capitalist word "taxes" and instead using the touchstone socialism phrase
- link do comentário
- responder

A c 07.11.2012

wealth redistribution." For instance, a pro-life person never uses the word "fetus" — they use the phrase "unborn child" and vice-versa. Advocates of the free enterprise system use the word taxes. Socialists use the phrase wealth redistribution.

It isn’t a small thing. It’s everything.

Contrary to the Leftists who have taken over the Democratic Party, old-school liberals never wanted to fundamentally transform the United States of America. There is a radical difference between wanting to improve upon something and wanting to fundamentally change its basic, underlying values.

What Obama really wants is to fundamentally transform the United States of America into the Soviet States of America — a system that replaces individual rights with collective rights.

Although some on the Left think that could never happen in the United States, it has happened in other democratic countries, and it can happen here. It happens when people start to become so lazy, and so trusting of one political party or its leader that they are willing to sacrifice their individual rights for collective rights. They compromise their freedom for security.

In Senator Rubio’s convention speech he pointed out that this election is “a choice about what country we want America to be.” He could not have been more accurate in his choice of words.

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a former Washington, D.C. prosecutor who served on U.S. Senator John F. Kerry’s presidential election legal team and interned for President Bill Clinton.
- link do comentário
- responder

Comentar post

O autor

ver perfil
seguir perfil
35 seguidores

Posts recentes

Subscrever por e-mail

A subscrição é anónima e gera, no máximo, um e-mail por dia.

Arquivo

2024
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2023
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2022
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2021
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2020
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2019
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2018
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2017
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2016
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2015
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2014
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2013
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2012
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2011
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2010
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2009
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2008
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2007
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
2006
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D

Em destaque no SAPO Blogs

pub

irritado (blog de António Borges de Carvalho).