Trump: Quiero pastores y ministros con poder y que puedan levantarse y hablar en nombre del cristianismo

En una entrevista exclusiva con The Brody File, Donald Trump quiere ver a los pastores cristianos hablar más audazmente desde el púlpito porque según él lo ve, “la iglesia tiene que tener más poder”. Se refiere al pasaje de la Enmienda Johnson en la cual el El código de impuestos de los Estados Unidos fue alterado para que las organizaciones exentas de impuestos (como iglesias en muchos casos) no pudieran aprobar u oponerse a candidatos políticos.

Trump dice que el gobierno federal nunca debería haberlo hecho. Han quitado mucho del poder de la iglesia. Quiero devolver el poder a la iglesia … El cristianismo está siendo cortado; Poco a poco se la está quitando.

“Trump continúa:” Quiero pastores y ministros con poder y que puedan levantarse y hablar en nombre del cristianismo pero tienen miedo de hacerlo ahora mismo porque no quieren perder su estado exento de impuestos. Nos ocuparemos de eso.

El Brody File ha entrevistado a Trump varias veces y esta es la primera vez que menciona la enmienda de Johnson en lo que se refiere a los pastores hablando desde el púlpito. Trump lidera con los evangélicos en Carolina del Sur.

Su enfoque fuerte y no absurdo es atractivo para algunos evangélicos. En público, puede ser áspero en los bordes, pero su narración es de un tipo que hace las cosas.bien Su marca es un logro, y cuando dice que va a “cuidar a los evangélicos” y comenzar a luchar de nuevo por el cristianismo, mucha gente lo cree por su valor nominal. Es una gran tarjeta del “triunfo” a tener en su bolsillo político.

David Brody: “Hábleme de su núcleo porque dice muchas cosas buenas, pero la gente quiere asegurarse de lo que usted va a ser capaz de entregar.

Donald Trump: “Soy un cristiano. Soy protestante. Soy presbiteriano. Creo en el cristianismo francamente, creo que los cristianos en nuestro país no son tratados adecuadamente. El proyecto de ley que se aprobó durante la era de Lyndon Johnson es horrible porque veo iglesias donde tienen miedo de ser francos porque no quieren perder su estado exento de impuestos y me doy cuenta de que es uno de los problemas. Conozco a personas que quieren respaldarme, pero tienen miedo de apoyar a alguien porque no quieren ser políticos, así que esencialmente han quitado mucho del poder que deberia la iglesia. Quiero devolver el poder a la iglesia porque la iglesia tiene que tener más poder. El cristianismo está siendo cortado; Poco a poco se lo están quitando. ”

David Brody: “Así que invocaste a Lyndon Johnson allí en 1952, el estado exento de impuestos, así que entiendo que básicamente estás diciendo que quieres que los pastores se involucren más y hablen más audazmente desde el púlpito como lo hicieron en la Guerra Revolucionaria , ¿es eso?

Donald Trump: “Quiero que los pastores puedan hablar. Tienen miedo de hablar ahora, tienen miedo de involucrarse en la política debido al estatus de exención de impuestos y quiero que los pastores puedan hablar … Quiero pastores y ministros que puedan levantarse y hablar en nombre del cristianismo Y tienen miedo de hacerlo ahora porque no quieren perder su estado exento de impuestos. Nos ocuparemos de eso.

Fuente: CBN
Articulo traducido por: Noticias Finales

"Ya no existe": en Europa lamentan la pérdida del "paraíso" ruso

"Ya no existe": en Europa lamentan la pérdida del "paraíso" ruso
Publicado: 22 ene 2017 13:24 GMT www.actualidad.rt.com

Los tiempos en que los consumidores rusos compraban todo lo que era bueno y caro "se acabaron", lamenta Dietmar Fellner, el consejero comercial de la embajada de Austria en Moscú.

Imagen ilustrativaVladimir TrefilovSputnik
Síguenos en Facebook



Rusia ha logrado superar los efectos negativos de las sanciones económicas, mientras que el sector alimentario de la Unión Europea continúa sufriendo las pérdidas ocasionadas por las contramedidas rusas.

El consejero comercial de la embajada de Austria en Moscú, Dietmar Fellener, afirma según el diario austriaco 'Kurier' que hace cuatro años Rusia era un "mercado paradisíaco" para las exportaciones del país centroeuropeo, ya que el consumidor ruso compraba todo lo que era bueno y caro. Sin embargo, constata Fellner, "esos días han terminado, ese paraíso ya no existe.

Según lamenta el consejero, la economía de Rusia ha sobrevivido al impacto de la caída de los precios del petróleo y las sanciones occidentales, "pero Austria no lo ha logrado". Fellner ha precisado que las exportaciones totales de Austria a Rusia, que en 2013 alcanzaron un récord de 3.500 millones de euros (3.700 millones de dólares estadounidenses), se han reducido a la mitad.
Trump anuncia las condiciones para levantar las sanciones contra Rusia

El funcionario ha constatado que las sanciones contra Moscú cambiaron la mentalidad de los rusos, que "se han vuelto más ahorradores y críticos". Fellner también ha señalado que para su país "es particularmente doloroso que los rusos hayan aumentado vigorosamente su producción nacional" en las áreas de la alimentación y la agricultura. Asimismo, ha constatado que será más difícil regresar al mercado ruso debido a la política de sustitución de las importaciones implementada por las autoridades rusas.

Los años de recesión económica han terminado en Rusia. En 2017, la economía rusa crecerá un 1,5% y la inflación caerá a un mínimo histórico. Además, una posible mejora de las relaciones entre Rusia y Estados Unidos podría apoyar este crecimiento, observa la publicación, agregando que el crecimiento de la economía rusa da lugar a nuevas oportunidades para los exportadores austriacos.

La página web de la Casa Blanca dice 'adiós' a la lengua española

Publicado: 22 ene 2017 06:24 GMT www.actualidad.rt.com

La página oficial del Gobierno estadounidense muestra varios cambios tras la toma de posesión de Donald Trump.

Lucas JacksonReuters

Tras la investidura del presidente de EE.UU., Donald Trump, la página web oficial de la Casa Blanca ha dejado de estar disponible en español.

Según detalla la revista 'Inverse', la base de datos Wayback Machine capturó la pantalla de la página del Gobierno estadounidense el último día de la presidencia de Barack Obama y el momento en que Trump asumió el poder.

Con la administración predecesora la columna 'Cuestiones' ('Issues') era la más larga y contenía 29 temas con secciones diferentes. En total había 114 enlaces y la página contaba con la opción 'En Español'.

whitehouse.gov

Sin embargo, poco después de la toma de posesión de Trump, a las 13:00 horas del 20 de enero, en la página aparecieron tan solo como 38 enlaces. Después fueron agregadas varias secciones relacionadas con el sector energético, las relaciones exteriores, el empleo y crecimiento y otras.

Con el cierre de la página en español también han desaparecido varias páginas como la que estaba dedicada a la comunidad LGBT y la del cambio climático.

En Twitter ha sido creada la cuenta la Casa Blanca en español, pero hasta el momento no hay mensajes en ese idioma.

The Ongoing War Against Trump

ERIC ZUESSE | 22.01.2017 | WORLD

The Obama-Clinton (and Democratic Party newsmedia) war against Donald Trump — a war to delegitimize him as the U.S. President, and to soften the country up for installing instead a President as rabidly hostile toward Russia as Hillary Clinton would have been — continues on every front. 

The New York Times headlined on Inauguration Day, Friday the 20th of January, «Donald Trump’s Inauguration Becomes a Time to Protest and Plan». That news-report said:

The American Civil Liberties Union announced on Thursday that it had filed its first legal action against Mr. Trump, a Freedom of Information Act request for documents about his potential conflicts of interest, and it released a seven-point plan to challenge every aspect of the incoming president’s agenda.

«It’s a first shot across the bow to underscore the fact that no one, not even the president, is above the law, and that there are serious concerns about the president’s disregard for existing laws and statutes,» said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the organization, which is adding 100 staff members — a 10 percent increase — in anticipation of taking legal action against Mr. Trump. »We need to go on offense from the very beginning, and we will litigate everything that we possibly can, we will try to deny them momentum, we’ll try to rob them of time and bandwidth».

The libertarian-liberal ACLU is financed mainly by Democratic Party aristocrats such as the hedge-fund gambler (euphemistically called ‘investor’) David Gelbaum ($19 million donated annually to ACLU until George W. Bush’s economic crash hit him hard in 2009 and forced him to stop), David Trone ($15 million in 2015), and George Soros (now in the fourth year of a $50 million total donation). Also, some Republican families such as the Kochs and the Waltons were mentioned, although that poorly written Washington Post article merely suggested, but failed to make clear whether, those families had donated anything to ACLU. Furthermore, the libertarian neoconservative (otherwise known as neoliberal neoconservative, or as imperialistic libertarian, or, more simply, as «war-mongering») Democrat Soros’s Center for Media & Democracy has exposed the fact that almost all of the libertarian Republican Kochs’ donations on criminal justice are actually to weaken laws against CEO and other white-collar crimes — so as to benefit the aristocracy, at the public’s expense. Furthermore, one of the much-pumped Koch ‘charitable’ involvements that helps poor ex-convicts, had actually received from the Kochs only a donation «in the six figures» — pocket-change, cheap lipstick on their enormous financial pig.

Soros himself, moreover, does far more to stir war against Russia than to ‘do good’ inside America or anywhere else; and so, for all aristocrats, ‘non-profits’ (such as ACLU) are likelier propaganda-vehicles to put a kindly face upon their unlimited greed (and partisan political campaigns), than they are actual agencies for the public’s good. Of course, the millions of small donors (who don’t own any ‘charities’) take no tax-deductions for their far more sincerely intended sacrifices of their personal donations; and all tax-deductions for ‘charitable donations’ are less of an actual generosity than they are a political scam on the rest of society, by the wealthiest Americans, to receive both good PR and lowered taxes, while the lower 90% become yet poorer than they were before, with no tax-deduction for their authentic generosity, and so those non-rich individuals end up being the people who pay the tab for it all, in taxes, low wages, and crumbling infrastructure. It’s a vast societal scam worldwide, by the top 0.1% actually, against the bottom 99.9%, in order that (for example) «Eight men now own the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the world», and yet it somehow won’t be considered to be unearned wealth, theft (however subtly) by the richest few, from the less-fortunate half of the population. (No? Eight men are as worthy as are the 3.75 billion who constitute the world’s poorer half? Those eight earned as much as those 3.75 billion? Or do they simply take as much?) (What actually stands behind, and sustains, any such enormous concentration of wealth, is power, which is composed of deceit and violence — deceit if a ‘democracy’, violence if a dictatorship. It’s theft, either way. That’s just a fact. But, of course, myths, from the aristocracy, constantly deny it.)

So: who are Gelbaum and Trone? David Gelbaum ‘earned’ his fortune in high-frequency trading, using algorithms to identify moment-to-moment stock trends, at Princeton Newport Partners. David Trone is a strong believer in the fascist principle that money is speech, so that billionaires have thousands of times more ‘free speech’ ‘rights’ than normal people do, and this favoritism for the super-rich fits the Republican Supreme Court’s rulings that political campaigns should be one-dollar-one-vote instead of one-person-one-vote — or that no one’s political spending should be limited, a principle the ACLU has backed strongly. Trone’s own personal political contest, to become the Democratic candidate to replace the retiring Democrat Chris van Hollen in the U.S. House, spent more money, $393 per vote, than anyone in U.S. history had spent, and it was all his own money — and yet he was so lousy that he didn’t win the nomination anyway. Like most mega-donors, these ‘philanthropists’ join with others of like mind, to control their government (both political Parties), for their collective class benefits, the super-rich class against everybody else — but not against their ‘philanthropies’, their own tax-advantaged PR organizations. And yet some of them can’t win a Congressional nomination even paying $393 per vote; so, all that remains to them for swaying the government, is to use the propaganda-cover of «ACLU,» or some other ‘idealistic’ ‘charity’, to front their ‘philanthropy’.

America’s aristocracy just don’t like Trump, and they overwhelmingly — even Republican ones — preferred Hillary Clinton to become President. In the final tally for the 2016 Presidential election, Trump’s campaign spent $340 million for 62.98 million votes, and Hillary’s campaign spent $581 million for 65.84 million votes. Trump spent $5.39 per vote, while Hillary spent $8.82 per vote (much of Hillary’s being wasted in states like California where she clobbered Trump by 60% or more, whereas Trump focused only on the states that were toss-ups, which latter states decided the contest). (In America’s Electoral College, winning a given state by 1 vote is the same as winning it by 100% — it’s «winner take all».) (Yes, like throughout Hillary’s entire career, she was plain stupid, notwithstanding that she was articulate.) (Of course, both of the candidates were liars, but neither of them was nearly as skillful at that craft, as was Barack Obama, a supreme master of deceit.) Excluding $66 million which Trump himself had paid for his campaign (Hillary spent nothing on hers), his campaign received a mere $274 million from donors — less than half of the $581 million that Hillary’s donors gave to hers. (As regards the average size of the donations that any candidate has received, the American system is set up so that no such figure can be calculated, and the only sources on the matter come from the campaigns themselves and cannot be verified from any reliable source.) In any case: Clinton was overwhelmingly (by more than two-to-one) favored above Trump by America’s aristocracy.

Consequently, whereas the U.S. aristocracy were willing to finance George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and (in 2016) Hillary Clinton, into the White House, they provided far fewer funds to their fellow-aristocrat Donald Trump, who wants to end the Cold War on the U.S. side now — 25 years after George Herbert Walker Bush and all of his successor-Presidents until Trump had consistently refused to end the Cold War, even though it ended on the Soviet side in 1991, when the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance all ended, even while America’s anti-Russia NATO military alliance continues to this day. Ending that war by the U.S. side would mean steep declines in some of the aristocracy’s major investments: they therefore resist it implacably.

Trump is offering, to his fellow-aristocrats, a deal, and we’ll soon know whether enough of them accept it, for him to be allowed to serve out his term: generous opportunities to scam the American public, in some ways even more than Obama and Bush did. So far, it seems that America’s aristocrats simply will not accept anything less than the precise type of scam that GHW Bush instituted and laid the groundwork for: rule of, by, and for, America’s military-industrial complex (themselves), focused specifically upon conquering Russia (mainly because that’s not only the most resource-rich target, but also because it’s the only ‘enemy’ that to ‘compete’ against with new weaponry would keep their own mega-arms firms soaring).

Trump has given these people a national-security team that is rabid to conquer Iran; but, apparently, even this aggressive intent is not sufficient to win their support. Nothing but conquering Russia will suffice, for them; so, they are now pressing forward with their scheme to portray Trump as being ‘Putin’s puppet’.

They have thus thrown down the gauntlet, and they stand a reasonably good likelihood of being able soon to replace him with his current Vice President, Mike Pence, who has no such rebellious tendency. Perhaps the Republican establishment would have gone all-in for Hillary Clinton (and Trump wouldn’t even have gotten that $274 million) unless Trump offered them a Vice Presidential candidate, a back-up, whom they approved of (such as Pence); but Trump’s having made this concession to them could end up as his un-doing. What more concessions could he offer them than he has already done by his rabidly anti-Iranian Cabinet-appointments? Only time will tell, and it could tell soon.

So, now comes the moment when the answer — whether Trump rules his aristocracy, or his aristocracy rules Trump — will likely soon become clear.

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 21.01.2017 | OPINION

British Fingerprints in Dirty Tricks Against Trump

Britain’s divisive Brexit politics are playing out through the new US presidency of Donald Trump. It seems that a faction within the British political establishment which is opposed to Britain leaving the European Union has joined forces with American intelligence counterparts to hamper Trump’s new administration.

By hampering Trump, the pro-EU British faction would in turn achieve a blow against a possible bilateral trade deal emerging between the US and Britain. Such a bilateral trade deal is vital for post-Brexit Britain to survive outside of the EU. If emerging US-British trade relations were sabotaged by disenfranchising President Trump, then Britain would necessarily have to turn back to rejoining the European Union, which is precisely what a powerful British faction desires.

What unites the anti-Trump forces on both sides of the Atlantic is that they share an atlanticist, pro-NATO worldview, which underpins American hegemony over Europe and Anglo-American-dominated global finance. This atlanticist perspective is vehemently anti-Russian because an independent Russia under President Vladimir Putin is seen as an impediment to the US-led global order of Anglo-American dominance.

The atlanticists in the US and Britain are represented in part by the upper echelons of the intelligence-military apparatus, embodied by the American Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s Military Intelligence (Section) 6 (MI6).

Notably, incoming US President Donald Trump has expressed indifference towards NATO. This week he repeated comments in which he called the US-led military alliance «obsolete».Trump’s views are no doubt a cause of grave consternation among US-British atlanticists.

It is now emerging that British state intelligence services are involved much more deeply in the dirty tricks operation to smear Trump than might have been appreciated heretofore. The British involvement tends to validate the above atlanticist analysis.

The dirty tricks operation overseen by US intelligence agencies and willing news media outlets appears to be aimed at undermining Trump and, perhaps, even leading to his impeachment.

The former British MI6 agent, named as Christopher Steele, who authored the latest sexual allegations against Trump, was initially reported as working independently for US political parties. However, it now seems that Steele was not acting as an independent consultant to Trump’s political opponents during the US election, as media reports tended to indicate.

Britain’s Independent newspaper has lately reported that Steele’s so-called «Russian dossier» – which claimed that Trump was being blackmailed by the Kremlin over sex orgy tapes – was tacitly given official British endorsement.

That endorsement came in two ways. First, according to the Independent, former British ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Woods, reportedly gave assurances to US Senator John McCain that the dossier’s allegations of Russian blackmail against Trump were credible. Woods met with McCain at a security conference in Canada back in November. McCain then passed the allegations on to the American FBI – so «alarmed» was he by the British diplomat’s briefing.

The second way that Britain has endorsed the Russian dossier is the newly appointed head of MI6, Sir Alex Younger, is reported to have used the material produced by his former colleague, Christopher Steele, in preparing his first speech as head of the British intelligence service given in December at the agency’s headquarters in London. That amounts to an imprimatur from MI6 on the Russian dossier.

Thus, in two important signals from senior official British sources, the Russian dossier on Trump was elevated to a serious intelligence document, rather than being seen as cheap gossip.

Excerpts from the document published by US media last week make sensational claims about Trump engaging in orgies with prostitutes in the presidential suite of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel while attending a Miss World contest in 2014. It is claimed that Russian secret services captured the alleged lewd activity on tape and will now be able to leverage this «kompromat» in order to blackmail Trump who becomes inaugurated this week as the 45th president of the United States.

Several informed analysts have dismissed the Russian dossier as an amateurish fake, pointing out its vague hearsay, factual errors and questionable format not typical of standard intelligence work. Also, both Donald Trump and the Kremlin have categorically rejected the claims as far-fetched nonsense.

While most US media did not publish the salacious details of Trump’s alleged trysts, and while they offered riders that the information was «not confirmed» and «unverifiable», nevertheless the gamut of news outlets gave wide coverage to the story which in turn directed public attention to internet versions of the «sensational» claims. So the US mainstream media certainly lent critical amplification, which gave the story a stamp of credibility.

US intelligence agencies, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA chief John Brennan, appended the two-page Russian dossier in their separate briefings to outgoing President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump last week. Those briefings were said to mainly focus on US intelligence claims that Russian state-sponsored hackers had carried out cyber attacks to influence the US election last November.

Therefore, US intelligence, their British counterparts and the mass media all played a concerted role to elevate low-grade gossip against Trump into a seemingly credible scandal.

Trump has been waging a war of words with the US intelligence agencies, snubbing them by cutting back on presidential briefings and rubbishing their claims of Russian hacking as «ridiculous». Recently, Trump appeared to shift towards accepting the US intel assessment that Russia had carried out cyber attacks. But he balked at any suggestion that the alleged hacking was a factor in why he won the election against Hillary Clinton.

At a news conference before the weekend, Trump turned up the heat on the US intelligence agencies by blaming them for leaking to the media their briefing to him on the notorious Russian dossier. Trump compared their tactics to that of «Nazi Germany». CIA chief John Brennan couldn’t contain his anger and told media that such a comparison was «outrageous».

Trump may have savaged the Russian blackmail allegations as «fake news». But there are indications that US and British intelligence – and their reliable media mouthpieces – are not giving up on their dirty tricks operation, which has all the hallmarks of a vendetta.

Pointedly, James Clapper, the outgoing US Director of National Intelligence, has said that the secret services have not arrived at a judgment as to whether the Russian blackmail claims are substantive or not. British state-owned BBC has also reported that CIA sources believe that Russian agents have multiple copies of «tapes of a sexual nature» allegedly involving Trump in separate orgies with prostitutes in Moscow and St Petersburg.

In other words this scandal, regardless of veracity, could run and run and run, with the intended effect of undermining Trump and crimping his policies, especially those aimed at normalizing US-Russia relations, as he has vowed to do. If enough scandal is generated, the allegations against Trump being a sexually depraved president compromised by Russian agents – a declared foreign enemy of the US – might even result in his impeachment from the White House on the grounds of treason.

Both the American and British intelligence services appear to be working together, facilitated by aligned news media, to bolster flimsy claims against Trump into allegations of apparent substance. The shadowy «deep state» organs in the US and Britain are doing this because they share a common atlanticist ideology which views Anglo-American dominance over the European Union as the basis for world order. Crucial to this architecture is NATO holding sway over Europe, which in turn relies on demonizing Russia as a «threat to European security».

Clamping down on Trump, either through impeachment or at least corrosive media smears, would serve to further the atlanticist agenda.

For a section of British power – UK-based global corporations and London finance – the prospect of a Brexit from the EU is deeply opposed. The Financial Times list of top UK-based companies were predominantly against leaving the EU ahead of last year’s referendum. Combined with the strategic atlanticist ideology of the military-intelligence apparatus there is a potent British desire to scupper the Trump presidency.

But, as it happens, the American and British picture is complicated by the fact that the British government of Prime Minister Theresa May is very much dependent on cooperation and goodwill from the Trump administration in order for post-Brexit Britain to survive in the world economy outside the EU.

The British government is committed to leaving the EU as determined by the popular referendum last June. To be fair to May’s government, it is deferring to the popular will on this issue. Premier May is even talking about a «hard Brexit» whereby, Britain does not have future access to the European single market. Fervent communications between Downing Street and the Trump transition team show that the British government views new bilateral trade deals with the US as vital for the future of Britain’s economy. And Trump has reciprocated this week by saying that Britain will be given top priority in the signing of new trade deals.

In this way, the British establishment’s divisions over Brexit – some for, some against – are a fortunate break for Trump. Because that will limit how much the British intelligence services can engage in dirty tricks against the president in league with their American counterparts. In short, the atlanticist desire to thwart Trump has lost its power to act malevolently in the aftermath of Britain’s Brexit.

That might also be another reason why Donald Trump has given such a welcoming view on the Brexit – as «a great thing». Perhaps, he knows that it strengthens his political position against deep state opponents who otherwise in a different era might have been strong enough to oust him.

Trump and Brexit potentially mean that the atlanticist sway over Europe is fading. And that’s good news for Russia