Radamel Falcao Goal Sevilla 0-2 Atletico Madrid

Americans Over 35 lost 22 % of their Assets...! Obama and Homosexual marriage act...FDA to approve hidden aspartame...WHY??

Americans Over 35 Have Lost 22 Percent of Their Assets

 

by William Bigelow 25 February, 2013

According to Pew Research, if you’re an American 35 or older, your assets have plummeted 22 percent since 2007.

In 2007, assets for those 35 and older were estimated at an average of $293,968, but by 2010 that number had dropped to $230,018. That decrease in value is attributed to consistently high unemployment, the drop in the housing market, and Barack Obama’s inability to fix the American economy. The 1.22 debt-to-income ratio of those 35 and older is now higher than it has been for thirty years.

Barack Obama’s popularity numbers are dropping as a result of Americans’ personal debt growing while payroll taxes and gas prices are steadily rising. Economist/YouGov just released a poll showing that only 47 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s job performance, while 46 percent disapprove. 

Even those under 35 are becoming disillusioned with Obama; among those polled who were between the ages of 18-29, Obama’s approval numbers were only 43 percent, a much lower percentage of that age group than the number who voted for him in 2012. 

Rasmussen Reports indicates that only 16 percent of adults think Obama’s economy is good to excellent; only 40 percent think Obama is effective at creating jobs. The assets of Americans under 35 have also sunk 14 percent, from an average of $38,071 in 2007 to $32,793 in 2010.

Administración Obama versus Ley sobre el matrimonio homosexual

Amy Payne and Jennifer A. Marshall

El presidente Obama da tantos giros de 180 grados en sus posiciones políticas que es complicado seguirle el rastro. Después de presentarse a presidente respaldando el matrimonio tradicional, “evolucionó” para respaldar el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo y ahora su Departamento de Justicia ha instado oficialmente a la Corte Suprema a que derogue esa ley por completo.

La Ley de Defensa del Matrimonio (DOMA), que define el matrimonio como la unión de un hombre y una mujer en lo referente a la ley federal, fue aprobada por el Congreso con una aplastante mayoría de votos de ambos partidos y fue ratificada por el presidente Bill Clinton en 1996. Dicha ley será objeto de una impugnación judicial que será vista por la Corte Suprema el próximo 27 de marzo. El viernes pasado, el Departamento de Justicia de Obama presentó un informe ante la Corte Suprema estableciendo la posición de la administración de que la DOMA es inconstitucional.

NECESITA DINERO...BANCO SOCIAL: AYUDA RAPIDA de $500

Normalmente, es tarea del Departamento de Justicia el hacer cumplir las leyes de la nación. Pero como ha observado el analista de la Fundación Heritage Hans von Spakovsky, la administración de Obama es diferente:

Pero ahora tenemos un Departamento de Justicia tan politizado que en realidad está argumentando en los tribunales en contra de los estatutos federales y no lo está haciendo basándose en los dictados de la ley…sino basándose en las preferencias normativas aparentes y en la ideología política de esta administración. Hasta aquí llegó el preocuparse de que las leyes se ejecuten fielmente.

La Corte Suprema también oirá los argumentos contra la Proposición 8, la enmienda constitucional del estado de California que define el matrimonio como la unión de un hombre y una mujer, que fue aprobada por el voto popular de los ciudadanos de ese estado. Los argumentos del 26 de marzo se presentarán el día antes de los argumentos de la DOMA. Diversas organizaciones, lideradas por la Organización Nacional para el Matrimonio, van a celebrar en Washington D.C una Marcha por el Matrimonio ese mismo 26 de marzo.

John C. Eastman, profesor de derecho y antiguo decano de la Escuela de Derecho de la Universidad Chapman, redactó un Memorándum Legal para la Fundación Heritage, detallando las cuestiones constitucionales presentes en estos casos. Eastman explica que las demandas en torno al matrimonio “implican dos conceptos constitucionales fundamentales. El primero es si las leyes en cuestión prohíben el ejercicio del derecho fundamental a casarse en violación de la Cláusula de Respeto de las Garantías Legales. El segundo es si estas tratan a algunas personas de forma distinta debido a su orientación sexual en violación de la Cláusula de Igual Protección”.

Eastman argumenta que la Constitución no ofrece una respuesta sobre el matrimonio y que:

La pregunta definitiva ante la Corte es entonces si la decisión de embarcarse en tal experimento debe ser tomada por las personas, bien mediante sus asambleas o directamente mediante iniciativas populares o si se debe interpretar que la Constitución, que no se pronuncia sobre esta cuestión concreta, ya ha respondido a dicha pregunta.

Durante años ha habido un firme debate sobre esta cuestión. Los ciudadanos de 41 estados han expresado una y otra vez que el matrimonio es entre un hombre y una mujer. La Corte Suprema debería permitir que el debate en torno al matrimonio continuase y debería dejar que la gente (no los tribunales) decida la normativa relativa al matrimonio.

El matrimonio existe para unir a un hombre y a una mujer como marido y esposa para que sean padre y madre de cualquier hijo que produzca su unión. Por ello, la normativa referente al matrimonio trata de mucho más que de la intensidad emocional. El gobierno no está encargado de afirmar nuestro amor, sino que deja al consentimiento de los adultos libres el vivir y amar del modo que elijan, como ha expresado el analista de la Fundación Heritage Ryan Anderson:

Contrariamente a lo que dicen algunos, no hay ninguna prohibición del matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo. Nada en torno al mismo es ilegal. En todos y cada uno de los 50 estados, dos personas del mismo sexo pueden elegir vivir juntos, elegir unirse a una comunidad religiosa que bendiga su relación y elegir un lugar de trabajo que les ofrezca diversos beneficios conjuntos. Muchas casas de culto y empresas progresistas así han decidido hacerlo voluntariamente. No hay nada ilegal en ello. No hay ninguna prohibición al respecto. 
Lo que está en cuestión es si el gobierno reconocerá tales relaciones como matrimonios y luego obligará a que todos los ciudadanos y empresas lo hagan también. En cuestión está si la normativa obligará e impondrá el que otros reconozcan y afirmen que las relaciones homosexuales son matrimonios.

En vez de en los deseos de los adultos, la normativa referente al matrimonio debería estar basada en las necesidades de los hijos: el producto de esta relación única de un hombre y una mujer.
Chuck Donovan, presidente de Susan B. Anthony List Education Fund, comentó anteriormente para la Fundación Heritage que:

Lo que está en juego es toda la labor de la sociedad de garantizar que tantos niños como sea posible sean criados por sus madres y sus padres. Las consecuencias de no conseguirlo son impactantes y el actual Estados Unidos, como tantas otras naciones occidentales, está comprobando esas consecuencias de primera mano. Los efectos de las familias rotas son estadísticamente significativas en todas las categorías: delincuencia juvenil, pobreza infantil, logros educativos y salud mental entre la población adulta de la próxima generación. Para los contribuyentes, los costos de las disoluciones familiares y, cada vez más, del fracaso en la formación de las familias, son angustiosamente altos y crecientes. Sería irracional no privilegiar el matrimonio frente a estas preocupaciones.

Redefinir el matrimonio incluiría un nuevo concepto en la ley: que el matrimonio es cualquier vínculo emocional que como tal establezca el gobierno. La confusión resultante de desvincular aún más la maternidad del matrimonio obligaría a que el estado interviniese más a menudo en la vida familiar. En lugar de redefinir el matrimonio, deberíamos estar luchando por restituir la cultura del matrimonio, un pilar fundamental de la sociedad civil y del gobierno limitado.

 

U.S. dairy industry petitions FDA to approve aspartame as hidden, unlabeled additive in milk, yogurt, eggnog and cream

Mike Adams
Natural News
Feb 26, 2013

You probably already know that the FDA has declared war on raw milk and even helped fund and coordinate armed government raids against raw milk farmers and distributors. Yes, it’s insane. This brand of tyranny is unique to the USA and isn’t even conducted in China, North Kora or Cuba. Only in the USA are raw milk farmers treated like terrorists.

But now the situation is getting even more insane than you could have imagined: the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition with the FDA asking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.

Importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label. They will simply be swept under the definition of “milk,” so that when a company lists “milk” on the label, it automatically includes aspartame or sucralose. And if you’re trying to avoid aspartame, you’ll have no way of doing so because it won’t be listed on the label.

This isn’t only for milk, either: It’s also for yogurt, cream, sour cream, eggnog, whipping cream and a total of 17 products, all of which are listed in the petition at FDA.gov.
As the petition states:

IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener — including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame.

This is all being done to “save the children,” we’re told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.

Milk industry specifically asks to HIDE aspartame from consumers
Astonishingly, the dairy industry is engaged in extreme doublespeak logic and actually arguing that aspartame should be hidden from consumers by not listing it on the label. Here’s what the petition says:

IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk — including flavored milk — as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”

In other words, hiding aspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!

Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that’s because it’s identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it’s for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.

Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you’ll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won’t have the right to know about any of this! CONTINUE READING

Is the US Health System a money scam?...Reforma migratoria....12 Debt Myths!!!

50 Signs That The U.S. Health Care System Is A Gigantic Money Making Scam

….That Is About To Collapse
Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Feb 25, 2013

The U.S. health care system is a giant money making scam that is designed to drain as much money as possible out of all of us before we die.  In the United States today, the health care industry is completely dominated by government bureaucrats, health insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations.  The pharmaceutical corporations spend billions of dollars to convince all of us to become dependent on their legal drugs, the health insurance companies make billions of dollars by providing as little health care as possible, and they both spend millions of dollars to make sure that our politicians in Washington D.C. keep the gravy train rolling.  Meanwhile, large numbers of doctors are going broke and patients are not getting the care that they need.  At this point, our health care system is a complete and total disaster.  Health care costs continue to go up rapidly, the level of care that we are receiving continues to go down, and every move that our politicians make just seems to make all of our health care problems even worse. 

In America today, a single trip to the emergency room can easily cost you $100,000, and if you happen to get cancer you could end up with medical bills in excess of a million dollars.  Even if you do have health insurance, there are usually limits on your coverage, and the truth is that just a single major illness is often enough to push most American families into bankruptcy.  At the same time, hospital administrators, pharmaceutical corporations and health insurance company executives are absolutely swimming in huge mountains of cash.  Unfortunately, this gigantic money making scam has become so large that it threatens to collapse both the U.S. health care system and the entire U.S. economy.

The following are 50 signs that the U.S. health care system is a massive money making scam that is about to collapse…

#1 Medical bills have become so ridiculously large that virtually nobody can afford them.  Just check out the following short excerpt from a recent Time Magazine article.  One man in California that had been diagnosed with cancer ran up nearly a million dollars in hospital bills before he died…

By the time Steven D. died at his home in Northern California the following November, he had lived for an additional 11 months. And Alice had collected bills totaling $902,452. The family’s first bill — for $348,000 — which arrived when Steven got home from the Seton Medical Center in Daly City, Calif., was full of all the usual chargemaster profit grabs: $18 each for 88 diabetes-test strips that Amazon sells in boxes of 50 for $27.85; $24 each for 19 niacin pills that are sold in drugstores for about a nickel apiece. There were also four boxes of sterile gauze pads for $77 each. None of that was considered part of what was provided in return for Seton’s facility charge for the intensive-care unit for two days at $13,225 a day, 12 days in the critical unit at $7,315 a day and one day in a standard room (all of which totaled $120,116 over 15 days). There was also $20,886 for CT scans and $24,251 for lab work.

#2 This year the American people will spend approximately 2.8 trillion dollars on health care, and it is being projected that Americans will spend 4.5 trillion dollars on health care in 2019.

#3 The United States spends more on health care than Japan, Germany, France, China, the U.K., Italy, Canada, Brazil, Spain and Australia combined.

#4 If the U.S. health care system was a country, it would be the 6th largest economy on the entire planet.

#5 Back in 1960, an average of $147 was spent per person on health care in the United States. By 2009, that number had skyrocketed to$8,086.  CONTINUE READING

Reforma migratoria: Los inmigrantes con títulos universitarios

Rich Tucker

“Nos encanta trabajar [en Estados Unidos]”, comentaba Anurag Bajpayee al Washington Post. Bajpayee tiene 27 años, procede de la India y está haciendo un trabajo de posdoctorado en ingeniería mecánica en el Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT). Junto con su socio empresarial y compañero de estudios Prakash Narayan Govindan, ha desarrollado una máquina que podría ayudar a purificar el agua utilizada en la fracturación hidráulica.

Ambos quieren permanecer en Estados Unidos y dirigir una compañía que fabrique y comercialice su invento después de que sus visas de estudiantes expiren este próximo verano. “Pero hay tantos inconvenientes por los que pasar”, comenta Bajpayee. “Y se corre el riesgo de ser deportado aunque estés creando empleo”.
La inmigración tiene el aspecto de un problema enorme. En este momento hay más de 10 millones de ilegales en Estados Unidos. Algunos llegaron legalmente y se quedaron cuando sus visas expiraron. Otros vienen y van, trabajando en Estados ilegalmente por temporadas y marchándose después de unos meses. Reducir su número, se nos dice, requiere una solución “integral”.

NECESITAS AYUDA TEMPORAL?  BANCO SOCIAL ofrece programas AET hasta $700...YA!

Pero una de las razones por las que la inmigración parece un problema sin solución se debe a que sería difícil, quizás imposible, resolver la totalidad del problema de una sola vez. Si los responsables políticos desglosasen la cuestión de la inmigración y solucionasen los problemas más pequeños de uno en uno, la situación podría tener un aspecto más prometedor.

Se puede empezar con personas como Bajpayee y Govindan. “El presidente Obama respalda el facilitar que los extranjeros que obtengan una maestría o un doctorado en las universidades de Estados Unidos puedan conseguir “tarjetas verdes” (o sea la residencia permanente), como propone un grupo de senadores de ambos partidos que está trabajando en esa reforma”, comenta Kevin Sullivan en The Washington Post.
“Sin embargo, la solución respecto a cómo redactar reformas integrales que abarquen tanto a los inmigrantes calificados como a los que no lo son, se encuentra estancada debido a luchas partidistas internas”.

Pero el hecho de que haya un amplio acuerdo sobre este tema en particular nos indica el camino a seguir: Los legisladores podrían facilitar el que cualquiera que tenga un posgrado se quede en el país. Eso no resolvería la totalidad del problema de la inmigración, pero sí lo reduciría en cierto modo.

“La reforma de la inmigración puede avanzar en muchos frentes al mismo tiempo, centrándose en algunas iniciativas de sentido común, para que se empiecen a abordar los retos prácticos que afronta nuestro sistema de inmigración”, comentaban el mes pasado los expertos de la Fundación Heritage Matthew Spalding, Jessica Zuckerman y James Jay Carafano. “Un problema diverso requiere de soluciones diversas que aborden por sí mismas cada uno de los retos a los que se enfrenta nuestro sistema de inmigración. Estados Unidos necesita un enfoque integral, no una legislación integral”.

Los inmigrantes que estudian actualmente en el MIT gracias a sus visas de estudiantes están deseosos de crear empleos y oportunidades para los americanos. No tiene sentido obligar a estos estudiantes a abandonar Estados Unidos al mismo tiempo que el Congreso decide sobre cómo actuar respecto a otros grupos de inmigrantes.

Separemos los problemas y pongamos en funcionamiento las mejores soluciones.

12 Debt Myths That Trip Up Consumers

Borrowers too often fall prey to the conventional wisdom. And it can cost them.

By RACHEL LOUISE ENSIGN

Avoid debt if you can.
If you can't, borrow carefully and conservatively.

So the conventional wisdom goes. But if you follow it blindly, you may miss out on key nuances of dealing with debt.

For instance, consider store-brand credit cards. They often offer no-interest financing, and rewards on store-bought products. Sounds great. But did you know those attractive financing terms can come back to bite if you carry a balance after a promotional period?

Then there's mortgage debt. A big down payment may be a great way to steer clear of a huge home loan. But if you get the money for the down payment from relatives, lenders may scrutinize your financials closely.
As many people look to rebuild credit or land loans, it's crucial to know when the conventional wisdom makes sense—and when it doesn't. With that in mind, here are some top myths that consumers fall victim to when borrowing today.

1. Once you marry, you're responsible for your spouse's debt.

Many couples think marrying each other means merging their debt loads, but that generally is not the case. While many couples opt to pay down debt together, neither spouse is usually legally obligated to pay off debt that the other incurred before marriage, says John Ulzheimer, president of consumer education at credit-monitoring service SmartCredit.com.
However, be aware that a spouse could lose that protection. If you refinance a loan with your significant other and put your name on the loan's promissory note, or add yourself as a joint account holder of a credit card, you'll likely become responsible for those debts, even if your spouse took them on before marriage, he says.

Brian Stauffer

Know also that you may be responsible for debt your spouse takes on after you wed, even if your name isn't on the account.

2. Credit cards from your favorite retailers are a good deal.

The pitches for store-branded credit cards can sound enticing, with lures like interest-free financing and rewards. But the deals may be much less appealing if you tend to carry a balance.

Enlarge Image

 

 

Some of the cards operate like payment plans where borrowers make a purchase from the retailer on the card and then have a number of months to pay it back, interest-free. But if you don't pay off the whole balance in the allotted time, you'll typically have to pay interest on the entire amount you initially charged retroactively—often at a higher rate than a typical credit card, says Odysseas Papadimitriou, chief executive of credit-card comparison website CardHub.com.

For instance, Apple offers customers up to 18 months interest-free on purchases on a card from Barclaycard US. But if you don't pay off that specific purchase in the interest-free period, you'll face a variable annual percentage rate that's currently about 23%, according to the Apple website.

Other cards don't offer deferred interest, but come with fairly high rates, says Ben Woolsey, director of marketing and consumer research at CreditCards.com. "Even somebody with excellent credit will be paying 20-plus percent," he says. For instance, the two cards offered through Banana Republic have variable rates recently at 24% and 25%, higher than the recent average rate of 15% on all variable-rate cards.

3. You're too rich for federal student loans.

Some well-off families figure they won't qualify for federal aid and don't apply. But that means they may have to turn to private loans instead. In recent years, as many as 41% of families earning $100,000 or more didn't file the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, which is necessary to land federal loans, according to a Sallie Mae survey. But passing up on that chance can be a mistake. READ MORE

Corporate Executives cashing out from Wall street? ... Mexico, serán posibles reformas profundas? ... How many rights have Americans lost?

The Big Dogs On Wall Street Are Starting To Get Very Nervous

Michael Snyder

Economic Collapse
Feb 22, 2013

Why are some of the biggest names in the corporate world unloading stock like there is no tomorrow, and why are some of the most prominent investors on Wall Street loudly warning about the possibility of a market crash?  Should we be alarmed that the big dogs on Wall Street are starting to get very nervous?  In aprevious article, I got very excited about a report that indicated that corporate insiders were selling nine times more of their own shares than they were buying.  Well, according to a brand new Bloomberg article, insider sales of stock have outnumbered insider purchases of stock by a ratio of twelve to one over the past three months.  That is highly unusual.  And right now some of the most respected investors in the financial world are ringing the alarm bells.  Dennis Gartman says that it is time to “rush to the sidelines”, Seth Klarman is warning about “the un-abating risks of collapse”, and Doug Kass is proclaiming that “we’re headed for a sharp fall”.  So does all of this mean that a market crash is definitely on the way?  No, but when you combine all of this with the weak economic data constantly coming out of the U.S. and Europe, it certainly does not paint a pretty picture.
According to Bloomberg, it has been two years since we have seen insider sales of stock at this level.  And when insider sales of stock are this high, that usually means that the market is about to decline…

Corporate executives are taking advantage of near-record U.S. stock prices by selling shares in their companies at the fastest pace in two years.
There were about 12 stock-sale announcements over the past three months for every purchase by insiders at Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) companies, the highest ratio since January 2011, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and Pavilion Global Markets. Whenever the ratio exceeded 11 in the past, the benchmark index declined 5.9 percent on average in the next six months, according to Pavilion, a Montreal-based trading firm.

But it isn’t just the number of stock sales that is alarming.  Some of these insider transactions are absolutely huge.  Just check out these numbers…

Among the biggest transactions last week were a $65.2 million sale by Google Inc.’s 39-year-old Chief Executive Officer Larry Page, a $40.1 million disposal by News Corp.’s 81- year-old Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch and a $34.2 million sale from American Express Co. chief Kenneth Chenault, who is 61. Nolan Archibald, the 69-year-old chairman of Stanley Black & Decker Inc. who plans to leave his post next month, unloaded $29.7 million in shares last week and Amphenol Corp. Chairman Martin Hans Loeffler, 68, sold $27.5 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, 57, announced plans to sell as many as 3.2 million shares in the operator of the world’s most-popular search engine. The planned share sales, worth about $2.5 billion, represent about 42 percent of Schmidt’s holdings.

So why are all of these very prominent executives cashing out all of a sudden? CONTINUE READING

México: Camino de convertirse en el “tigre azteca”

Drew Ringley

El presidente mexicano Enrique Peña Nieto, recién instalado en el cargo, está buscando la forma de renovar la economía de México y una de las herramientas que ya ha buscado es la puesta en marcha de una reforma laboral.

Se trata de una medida esperada desde hace mucho tiempo. Según el Índice 2013 de Libertad Económica, publicado por la Fundación Heritage y el Wall Street Journal, México se sitúa por debajo del promedio mundial en lo que respecta a libertad laboral, pues los poderosos intereses particulares que existen en México han hecho que las firmes reformas anteriores resultaran insuficientes e ineficaces.
Como se observa en el Índice, una legislación laboral inflexible hace difícil que los empleadores prescindan de los empleados que, por las razones que sean, no están sobresaliendo en su trabajo. El resultado: una menor productividad y unos márgenes de beneficios demasiado reducidos como para que las empresas se mantengan en pie en los momentos difíciles.

El sindicato de profesores de México (el mayor de Latinoamérica, con cerca de 650,000 miembros) nos brinda un ejemplo de cómo unos arraigados intereses particulares dan como resultado dichas ineficiencias. El sindicato promociona a los profesores según su lealtad y antigüedad, no por sus méritos. La legislación laboral mexicana tampoco hace que los educadores tengan que rendir cuentas por la calidad de su enseñanza. Al final, estas normativas sólo perjudican a los estudiantes a los que los educadores dicen que están tratando de ayudar.

NECESITA ASISTENCIA TEMPORAL? AET del Banco Social...$500 YA

Peña Nieto ya ha convencido a los líderes de su partido político (el Partido Revolucionario Institucional, históricamente el partido político “pro-sindicatos” de México) para que apruebe una ley que restrinja el poder sindical dentro del sistema educativo y que promocione a los profesores según sus méritos. Reformas estructurales como estas son las que se necesitan para transformar la lenta economía mexicana en el “tigre azteca” que están previendo muchos economistas.

A medida que los beneficios de las nuevas reformas laborales se empiecen a reflejar en el desempeño económico de México, el país se encontrará en una posición excelente para “saltar” sobre sus competidores globales. Su proximidad a Estados Unidos y la participación en numerosos acuerdos de libre comercio deberían permitir que México se convierta en un centro industrial global de primer orden en los próximos cinco años.

Peña Nieto tiene un largo y duro camino por delante, pero sus reformas podrían posicionar a su país como una economía de mercado emergente aún más fuerte y en el camino hacia una prosperidad y una libertad económica mayores.

Scorecard: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost?

Washington’s Blog
Feb 22, 2013

Preface: While a lot of people talk about the loss of our Constitutional liberties, people usually speak in a vague, generalized manner … or focus on only one issue and ignore the rest.
This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.

First Amendment

The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.

A federal judge found that the law allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a“chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this.

The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment.   The government is using laws to crush dissent, and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny.

For example, the following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today:

• Being young (if you live near a battle zone, you are fair game; and see this)

• Using social media

• Reporting or doing journalism

• Speaking out against government policies

• Protesting anything (such as participating in the “Occupy” movement)

• Questioning war (even though war reduces our national security; and see this)

• Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones (although killing innocent civilians with drones is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this)

• Asking questions about pollution (even at a public Congressional hearing?)

• Paying cash at an Internet cafe

• Asking questions about Wall Street shenanigans

• Holding gold

• Creating alternative currencies

• Stocking up on more than 7 days of food (even though all Mormons are taught to stockpile food, and most Hawaiians store up on extra food)

• Having bumper stickers saying things like “Know Your Rights Or Lose Them”

• Investigating factory farming

• Infringing a copyright

• Taking pictures or videos

• Talking to police officers

• Wearing a hoodie

• Driving a van

• Writing on a piece of paper

• (Not having a Facebook account may soon be added)

And holding the following beliefs may also be considered grounds for suspected terrorism:

• Being frustrated with “mainstream ideologies”

• Valuing online privacy

• Supporting Ron Paul or being a libertarian

• Liking the Founding Fathers

• Being a Christian

• Being anti-tax, anti-regulation or for the gold standard

• Being “reverent of individual liberty”

• Being “anti-nuclear”

• “Believe in conspiracy theories”

• “A belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack”

• “Impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

• “Insert religion into the political sphere”

• “Those who seek to politicize religion”

• “Supported political movements for autonomy”

• Being “anti-abortion”

• Being “anti-Catholic”

• Being “anti-global”

• “Suspicious of centralized federal authority”

• “Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

• “A belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in … survivalism”

• Opposing genetically engineered food

• Opposing surveillance

Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a separate system of justice in America. READ MORE

The US Economy in Big Trouble?.... Y los Venezolanos que pasa con Chavez?...Immigration ID's for all workers!!!

20 Signs That The U.S. Economy Is Heading For Big Trouble In The Months Ahead

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Feb 21, 2013

Is the U.S. economy about to experience a major downturn?  Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of signs that economic activity in the United States is really slowing down right now.  Freight volumes and freight expenditures are way down, consumer confidence has declined sharply, major retail chains all over America are closing hundreds of stores, and the “sequester” threatens to give the American people their first significant opportunity to experience what “austerity” tastes like. 

Gas prices are going up rapidly, corporate insiders are dumping massive amounts of stock and there are high profile corporate bankruptcies in the news almost every single day now.  In many ways, what we are going through right now feels very similar to 2008 before the crash happened.  Back then the warning signs of economic trouble were very obvious, but our politicians and the mainstream media insisted that everything was just fine, and the stock market was very much detached from reality.  When the stock market did finally catch up with reality, it happened very, very rapidly.  Sadly, most people do not appear to have learned any lessons from the crisis of 2008. 

Americans continue to rack upstaggering amounts of debt, and Wall Street is more reckless than ever.  As a society, we seem to have concluded that 2008 was just a temporary malfunction rather than an indication that our entire system was fundamentally flawed.  In the end, we will pay a great price for our overconfidence and our recklessness.
So what will the rest of 2013 bring?

Hopefully the economy will remain stable for as long as possible, but right now things do not look particularly promising.

The following are 20 signs that the U.S. economy is heading for big trouble in the months ahead…

#1 Freight shipment volumes have hit their lowest level in two years, and freight expenditures have gone negative for the first time since the last recession.
#2 The average price of a gallon of gasoline has risen by more than 50 cents over the past two months.  This is making things tougher on our economy, because nearly every form of economic activity involves moving people or goods around.
#3 Reader’s Digest, once one of the most popular magazines in the world, has filed for bankruptcy.
#4 Atlantic City’s newest casino, Revel, has just filed for bankruptcy.  It had been hoped that Revel would help lead a turnaround for Atlantic City.
#5 A state-appointed review board has determined that there is “no satisfactory plan” to solve Detroit’s financial emergency, and many believe that bankruptcy is imminent.  If Detroit does declare bankruptcy, it will be the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history.
#6 David Gallagher, the CEO of Town Sports International, recently said that his company is struggling right now because consumers simply do not have as much disposable income anymore…

“As we moved into January membership trends were tracking to expectations in the first half of the month, but fell off track and did not meet our expectations in the second half of the month. We believe the driver of this was the rapid decline in consumer sentiment that has been reported and is connected to the reduction in net pay consumers earn given the changes in tax rates that went into effect in January.“

#7 According to the Conference Board, consumer confidence in the U.S. has hit its lowest level in more than a year.
#8 Sales of the Apple iPhone have been slower than projected, and as a result Chinese manufacturing giant FoxConn has instituted a hiring freeze.  The following is from a CNET report that was posted on Wednesday…

The Financial Times noted that it was the first time since a 2009 downturn that the company opted to halt hiring in all of its facilities across the country. The publication talked to multiple recruiters.
The actions taken by Foxconn fuel the concern over the perceived weakened demand for the iPhone 5 and slumping sentiment around Apple in general, with production activity a leading indicator of interest in the product.

#9 In 2012, global cell phone sales posted their first decline since the end of the last recession.
#10 We appear to be in the midst of a “retail apocalypse“.  It is being projected that Sears, J.C. Penney, Best Buy and RadioShack will also close hundreds of stores by the end of 2013. CONTINUE READING

Chávez: Su regreso deja muchas interrogantes

Dr. Ray Walser

A primeras horas de la mañana del 18 de febrero, el presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, tuiteaba que estaba de vuelta en Caracas, tras pasar más de dos meses en un hospital de La Habana.

El pasado 11 de diciembre, Chávez se sometió a una cuarta operación quirúrgica para tratar otro cáncer que se le acababa de descubrir. Chávez fue trasladado inmediatamente a un hospital militar envuelto en un gran velo de secretismo. Sin embargo, aún persisten enormes incertidumbres en relación con su estado de salud. ¿Está Chávez, a sus 58 años, realmente en el camino de la recuperación? ¿O está inmerso en las fases terminales de su lucha contra un agresivo cáncer?

Un exembajador venezolano observaba que “Lo único que ha cambiado es la localización de su aislamiento. La incertidumbre es la misma. Nada es seguro”. Desde un punto de vista político, la muerte en Caracas parece preferible a morir en tierra extranjera bajo la supervisión de los Castro, pues muchos venezolanos siguen preocupados por el desmedido papel de Cuba en el futuro político de su nación.

Ciertamente, el sigiloso modo de volver de Chávez, en plena noche, plantea preguntas respecto a su salud. Sin embargo, el gobierno continúa organizando concentraciones masivas para respaldar a su achacoso líder, que están motivadas, quizá de un modo cínico, por el deseo de aferrarse a la esperanza de que vuelva el comandante.

Los venezolanos se encuentran cada vez más molestos por la ausencia de Chávez, que ha dejado a la nación sin la adecuada investidura presidencial y teniéndose que enfrentar a una posible polarización de las elecciones presidenciales, en el caso de que Chávez no consiga recuperar las fuerzas suficientes como para gobernar. Anhelan lo que John Adams describió como un “gobierno de leyes y no de hombres”.

La confianza en el futuro del modelo económico populista de Chávez también ha decaído tras la reciente devaluación de su moneda, que ha hecho aumentar aún más la inquietud en torno a la inflación, los desorbitados precios de los alimentos y el aumento de la escasez de los mismos. Puede que el creciente laberinto de regulaciones, restricciones y controles de precios apacigüe la fuga de capitales, pero no la detendrá, mientras en el país continúa la creciente demanda por hacerse con escasos suministros.

De momento, el retorno de Chávez ha hecho poco por calmar la ansiedad acerca de cuál puede ser realmente el último capítulo de la vida del caudillo bolivariano.

Senators in Immigration Talks Mull Federal IDs for All Workers

By DANNY YADRON

 

 Bloomberg News

A worker harvests bok choy at a California farm earlier this month.

Key senators are exploring an immigration bill that would force every U.S. worker—citizen or not—to carry a high-tech identity card that could use fingerprints or other personal markers to prove a person's legal eligibility to work.

The idea, signaled only in vaguely worded language from senators crafting a bipartisan immigration bill, has privacy advocates and others concerned that the law would create a national identity card that, in time, could track Americans at airports, hospitals and through other facets of their lives.

Vote

The lawmakers haven't committed to the "biometric" ID card, and are wary of any element that might split the fragile coalition of Democrats, Republicans and outside organizations working toward agreement on a broad overhaul of immigration laws.

But at least five of the eight senators writing the bill have backed biometric ID cards in the past. At least three of them—Sens. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.)—have said they support requiring the cards under the new law but are open to other options, aides say.

The goal is to ensure that employers can learn the legal status of all new hires quickly, part of the effort to dissuade illegal immigrants from entering the country or seeking jobs. A system now in place, called E-Verify, matches prospective hires to a database of Social Security numbers and other data, but it can be foiled at times when illegal immigrants give stolen names, dates of birth and Social Security numbers.

The Senate group, in a statement guiding their work on a new law, called for workers to prove their legal status and identities through "non-forgeable electronic means." Senate aides said the language was intentionally broad because of the sensitivity of the issue. It leaves open several possibilities for how new hires would be required to prove they can legally work.

Mr. Graham, in an interview, said that in his mind the language refers to a requirement for biometric ID cards. "This is the public's way of contributing to solving the problem" of illegal immigration, Mr. Graham said. CONTINUE READING

NRA Stand and Fight: We Are America

Unemployment headed ... Up!....Paises BRIC, mas de lo mismo?....Are we DEBT Slaves?

Report: Unemployment Headed Over 8% Again

by Wynton Hall 19 Feb 2013 

On Friday, financial research firm Lombard Street Research reported that “unemployment could rise above 8% and that profits will be squeezed.”

Lombard Street says its bearish employment and growth projections are the result of a host of factors, including: the 2% payroll tax increase’s drag on retail sales, the ineffectiveness of the Federal Reserve’s monetary pumping, and sequestration—the term used to describe billions in automatic spending cuts set to go into effect March 1st unless Congress acts to change it.
"Given underlying labor force growth of about 1 percent, this would add 0.7-0.8 percent to the unemployment rate, which was 7.9 percent in January. Even a less pessimistic view of (first quarter) and (second quarter) would send unemployment over 8 percent," said Lombard.
The financial research firm says it predicts the sequester will be shifted to cuts elsewhere but that the reduction in public sector spending will weigh down GDP growth.
"Our assumption is that the sequestration is canceled in favor of further cuts in a new provision. But this means the contribution from public spending to GDP growth could well be more negative than the past -0.4 percent," says Lombard.
The official U.S. unemployment rate is 7.9%. Last quarter, the U.S. economy grew at -0.1%.

Países BRIC: Creciente estatismo y decreciente libertad económica

James M. Roberts

El economista Nouriel Roubini advertía a finales del mes pasado en el Foro Económico Mundial de que el crecimiento económico de los países denominados como los BRIC (Brasil, Rusia, India y China) está en riesgo: se “anunció con bombos y platillos” sus éxitos pasados, pero el futuro de los BRIC está en riesgo debido a su creciente estatismo.

El crecimiento de este riesgo se puede ver en el siguiente gráfico: el estancamiento de los puntajes de libertad económica de los BRIC según el Índice de Libertad Económica anual elaborado por la Fundación Heritage y el Wall Street Journal.

Como observa Roubini, las “naciones con un mayor desarrollo se arriesgan a anular los logros de la pasada década al aumentar el papel del Estado dentro de la economía”. Roubini informaba de que recientemente los BRIC se han estado alejando de las economías de mercado debido a un incremento de la nacionalización de los recursos, al proteccionismo, a una falta de impulso para realizar reformas estructurales adicionales en pro del mercado que incrementen el tamaño del sector privado y, en general, por el desempeño de un mayor papel por parte del Estado dentro de empresas y bancos. Estas áreas específicas que preocupaban a Roubini se reflejan en los puntajes obtenidos por cada uno de los BRIC en el Índice:

· Brasil. Aunque la presidenta brasileña Dilma Rousseff ha llegado a un acuerdo para privatizar algunas compañías que operan autopistas y ferrocarriles (junto con, quizás, algunos aeropuertos), el gobierno aún domina demasiados aspectos de la economía del país, minando el desarrollo de un sector privado más dinámico.

· Rusia. El gobierno del primer ministro ruso Dmitri Medvédev ha pedido (aunque no las ha puesto en marcha) reformas de mercado que reduzcan el papel del Estado en la economía. Sin embargo, estas reformas están siendo obstruidas por la presidencia de carácter estatista de Putin, así como por las industrias de propiedad estatal, incluidas las del petróleo, el gas, los oleoductos y el complejo industrial militar, que se resisten a la transparencia y la privatización. Además, como según informa el analista de la Fundación Heritage Ariel Cohen, “Las autoridades policiales y el sistema judicial rusos son corruptos y se están desmoronando, lo que hace que la práctica empresarial en Rusia sea doblemente problemática”.

· India. Como informó la Fundación Heritage el pasado otoño (antes de las nuevas promesas de los políticos indios de volver a las iniciativas para la reforma del mercado), el gobierno indio ha sido “tremendamente ineficaz y ha mostrado señales de un comportamiento depredador, al poner la recaudación por delante de lo que es mejor para el país. Ha actuado como barrera en las relaciones económicas bilaterales, por ejemplo, en el comercio agrícola y en el acceso al mercado financiero. Otras acciones perjudiciales, como la reciente introducción de un gravamen retroactivo sobre las empresas multinacionales, desmotivan la participación extranjera en la economía india en general”.

· China. Aunque China amplió algunos derechos de la propiedad privada para los granjeros a finales de los años 70, lo que facilitó un fuerte incremento de la producción alimentaria y permitió la migración hacia las ciudades que sustentó la subsiguiente expansión industrial, desde entonces lo avances en los derechos de la propiedad rural han sido mínimos. Esto es en parte la causa del intenso deterioro medioambiental y de la caída de los ingresos en las zonas rurales, muy por debajo de los ingresos en las zonas urbanas. China es además el “mayor ladrón del mundo” de propiedad intelectual. Al mismo tiempo, la “OCDE considera las leyes chinas sobre inversión extranjera como las más restrictivas del G20”. Mientras tanto, las empresas de propiedad estatal están protagonizando una vuelta a la escena económica.

Aunque la categoría de BRIC (una dudosa mezcla de vínculos de mercado elaborada por Goldman Sachs hace más de una década) no es importante en sí misma, sí lo son las normativas de las grandes economías en desarrollo. Las advertencias del Índice 2013 de Libertad Económica acerca del estancamiento de la libertad económica entre los BRIC (y en todas partes) son muy claras, además de perturbadoras. Afortunadamente, el Índice también incluye una hoja de ruta para los BRIC y otros como ellos sobre cómo retornar a la senda del crecimiento.  

Money Is A Form Of Social Control And Most Americans Are Debt Slaves

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Feb 20, 2013

Is America really “the land of the free”?  Most people think of money as simply a medium of exchange that makes economic transactions more convenient, but the truth is that it is much more than that.  Money is also a form of social control.  Just think about it.  What did you do this morning?  Well, if you are like most Americans, you either got up and went to work (to make money) or to school (to learn the skills that you will need to make money).  We spend a great deal of our lives pursuing the almighty dollar, and there are literally millions of laws, rules and regulations about how we earn our money, about how we spend our money and about how much of our money the government gets to take from us.  Not that money is a bad thing in itself.  Without money, it would be really hard to have a modern society.  Unfortunately, our money is based on debt, and debt levels in the United States have exploded to absolutely unprecedented levels in recent years.  The borrower is the servant of the lender, and if you are like most Americans, nearly every major purchase that you make in your life is going to involve debt. 

Do you want to get a college education so that you can get a “good job”?  You are told to get a student loan.  Do you want a car?  You are encouraged to get an auto loan and to stretch out the payments for as long as possible.  Do you want a home?  You are probably going to end up with a big fat mortgage.  And of course I could go on and on and on.  The cold, hard truth of the matter is that most Americans are debt slaves.  Most of us spend our entire lives trapped in an endless cycle of debt that we never escape until we die, and meanwhile our years of hard labor are greatly enriching those that own our debts.

Have you ever found yourself wondering why you can never seem to get ahead financially no matter how hard you work?

Well, it is probably because you have gotten yourself enslaved to debt.

Just consider the following example about credit card debt from aformer Goldman Sachs banker…

On the debt side of things, how much does your credit card company earn if you carry just an average of a $5,000 credit card balance, paying, say, 22% annual interest rate (compounding monthly) for the next 10 years?

In your mind you owe a balance of only $5,000, which is not a huge amount, especially for someone gainfully employed.  After all, $5,000 is just a quick Disney trip, or a moderately priced ski-trip, or that week in Hawaii.  You think to yourself, “how bad could it be?”
The answer, including the cost of monthly compounding, is $44,235, or about 9 times what it appears to cost you at face value.

But a large percentage of Americans never pay off their credit cards at all.  They make small payments each month, but then they just keep on adding to their balances.In the end, that is financial suicide.

If you carry an “average balance” on your credit cards each month, and those credit cards have an “average” interest rate, you could end up paying millions of dollars to the credit card companies by the end of your life…

Let’s say you are an average American household, and you carry an average balance of $15,956 in credit card debt.
Also, as an average American household, let’s assume you pay an average current rate of 12.83%.
Finally, let’s assume you carry this average balance for 40 years, between ages 25 and 65.  How much did your credit card company make off of you and your extreme averageness?
Answer: $2,629,618.64

Sadly, approximately 46% of all Americans carry a credit card balance from month to month.
How stupid can we be as a nation?

When you become enslaved to the credit card companies, your toil and sweat makes them much wealthier.  It is a form of slavery that does not require anyone pointing a gun at you.
But we never seem to learn.  Incredibly, 43 percent of all American families spend more than they earn each year.

As the chart below demonstrates, consumer credit actually declined for a short while during the last recession, but now it has turned around and the growth of consumer credit is on the same trajectory as it was before the last economic crisis…




Today, the total amount of consumer credit in the United States is 15 times larger than it was 40 years ago.
And every major “milestone” in our lives typically involves even more debt.

-The total amount of student loan debt in the United States recently passed a trillion dollars, and approximately two-thirds of all college students graduate with student loan debt at this point.
-Total home mortgage debt in the United States is now about 5 times larger than it was just 20 years ago, and mortgage debt as a percentage of GDP has more than tripled since 1955.
-Car loans just keep getting longer and longer, and approximately 70 percent of all car purchases in the United States now involve an auto loan.
-Want to get married?  That average cost of a wedding is now $26,989which is probably going to mean even more debt unless you have wealthy parents.
-Do you have a serious medical problem?  According to a report published in The American Journal of Medicine, medical bills are a major factor in more than 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States.
Are you starting to understand why approximately half of all Americans die broke?
And I have not even begun to talk about our collective debts yet.

Government debt is a collective form of debt.  You may not have voted for any of the politicians that have been racking up debt in your name, but part of it still belongs to you.

Since the year 2000, state and local government debt has more than doubled.  These are collective debts for which we are all responsible…


And of course the biggest collective debt of all is the U.S. national debt. CONTINUE READING

Who's watching us?....Washington: Ejemplo de Libertad Religiosa... Obama's golf tour!!

EU to act against Google over privacy rules: French agency

Read more on »Google|French agency|European Union|EU privacy laws|EU|CNIL

At the end of a four-month delay "no response has been forthcoming by the company", said France's CNIL which is leading the effort.

PARIS: European data protection agencies intend to take action against the US Internet giant Google after it failed to follow their orders to comply with EU privacy laws, a French agency said on Monday.

In October the data protection agencies warned Google that its new confidentiality policy did not comply with EU laws and gave it four months to make changes or face legal action.

"At the end of a four-month delay accorded to Google to comply with the European data protection directive and to implement effectively (our) recommendations, no answer has been given," said France's CNIL data protection agency.

It said that European data protection agencies planned to set up a working group to "coordinate their coercive actions which should be implemented before the summer."

European data agencies are to meet next week to approve the action plan, said CNIL, which said it is leading the effort.

Google rolled out the new privacy policy in March 2012, allowing it to track users across various services to develop targeted advertising, despite sharp criticism from US and European consumer advocacy groups.

It contends the move simplifies and unifies its policies across its various services such as Gmail, YouTube, Android mobile systems, social networks and Internet search.

But critics argue that the policy, which offers no ability to opt out aside from refraining from signing into Google services, gives the operator of the world's largest search engine unprecedented ability to monitor its users.

Google reiterated on Monday that its confidentiality policy is in line with European law.

"Our privacy policy respects European law and allows us to create simpler, more effective services," Google said in a statement following CNIL's announcement.

The California-based firm said previously that the changes are designed to improve the user experience across the various Google products, and give the firm a more integrated view of its users, an advantage enjoyed by Apple and Facebook.

"We have engaged fully with the CNIL throughout this process, and we'll continue to do so going forward," it added.

European data protection agencies had recommended to Google that it improve information provided to users, particularly on the categories of data being processed, and for what purposes and services. READ MORE

George Washington: Ejemplo de libertad religiosa

Julia Shaw

En vez de celebrar el aniversario del nacimiento de George Washington, hoy lo hemos englobado junto a desconocidos entre los que se incluyen Millard Fillmore y William Henry Harrison para celebrar un “Día del Presidente” genérico.

Pero George Washington no fue simplemente un presidente. Fue el hombre indispensable de la Fundación Americana. Las palabras, pensamientos y actos de Washington como comandante militar, presidente y líder patriótico posiblemente hacen de él el mayor estadista de nuestra historia.

Todos los presidentes pueden aprender de Washington en cuanto a liderazgo en política exterior, en la defensa del Estado de Derecho y, especialmente en estos momentos, en la importancia de la religión y de la libertad religiosa. Pues aunque la administración Obama afirma que se está “dando cabida” a las inquietudes de los americanos respecto a la libertad religiosa en relación al mandato de Obamacare impuesto por el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), en realidad está pisoteando la libertad religiosa. El presidente Washington legó un magnífico ejemplo del modo en el que los presidentes deberían manejar dichos conflictos.

Washington sabía que la religión y la moralidad eran esenciales a la hora de crear las condiciones para una política decente. “¿Dónde queda la seguridad para la propiedad, para la reputación, para la vida, si el sentido de obligación religiosa desaparece de los juramentos que son los instrumentos de investigación en los tribunales de justicia?”, se preguntaba Washington.

La religión y la moralidad son, escribió Washington, esenciales para la felicidad de la humanidad: “En un libro no se podrían trazar todas sus conexiones con la felicidad pública y privada”.

Para corresponder a su alta estima de la religión, Washington poseía también una sólida comprensión de la libertad religiosa. La libertad permite la religión, en forma de moralidad y mediante las enseñanzas de la religión, para ejercer una influencia sin precedentes sobre la opinión tanto pública como privada. La libertad religiosa da forma a las costumbres, cultiva las virtudes y proporciona una fuente independiente de
razonamiento y autoridad moral. En su carta a la congregación hebrea de Newport (en su momento la mayor comunidad de familias judías de Estados Unidos) el presidente Washington cimentó las libertades civiles y religiosas de Estados Unidos en los derechos naturales y no en la mera tolerancia.

Washington también se enfrentó a los límites de la libertad religiosa. En otra carta, Washington elogió a los cuáqueros por ser buenos ciudadanos pero les reprendió por su pacifismo: “Sus principios y su conducta son bien conocidos por mí y es de simple justicia con las personas denominadas cuáqueras el decir que (excepto por declinar el compartir con los otros su carga en la defensa común) no hay congregación entre nosotros con unos ciudadanos más ejemplares y provechosos”. Sin embargo, Washington, finalizó su carta asegurándoles su “aspiración y deseo de que las leyes siempre se pudieran acomodar ampliamente” a sus prácticas.

Una verdadera acomodación de ese tipo ratifica el Estado de Derecho y la libertad religiosa, ya que permite que los hombres y mujeres de fe sigan tanto la ley como su fe religiosa.

En su carta a los cuáqueros, Washington explicó que el gobierno se constituye para “proteger a las personas y las conciencias de los hombres frente a la opresión”. Además, era el deber de los gobernantes “no sólo abstenerse ellos mismos [de ejercer la opresión], sino, según sus puestos, impedirla en otros”.

Pero el consejo de Washington ha sido ignorado.

Se nos dice que la religión y la política requieren de una estricta separación; que la religión es un impedimento para la felicidad y que por tanto se ha eliminado gradualmente del ámbito público. Se nos dice que las muestras de fe religiosa no dan sustento a la comunidad, sino que son manifiestamente ofensivas para los no adeptos. La Corte Suprema ha respaldado tanto como ha atenuado esta lógica distorsionada. Sin embargo, desde los años 40, la Corte ha constreñido cada vez más la religión y la libertad religiosa. En el mejor de los casos, la religión es un bien privado, pero uno que no debería mostrarse ante los demás. Y además, las creencias religiosas no tienen relevancia en la vida pública.

Se puede ver a dónde nos lleva esta lógica. Con Obamacare, todos los planes de seguros deben cubrir, sin costo para el asegurado, los medicamentos abortivos, los anticonceptivos, la esterilización, la educación como paciente y el consejo a las mujeres en edad fértil. A modo de ilustración de la estrechez de miras de la administración Obama en lo referente a la religión, sólo a las casas formales de culto se les permite una exención de este mandato obligatorio. Muchos otros empleadores religiosos, tales como hospitales católicos, escuelas cristianas y centros confesionales de atención al embarazo están obligados a proporcionar y pagar la cobertura de unos servicios que, por cuestión de fe, encuentran moralmente objetables.

Ni siquiera la recientemente propuesta de “acomodación” a la regla es una acomodación. Como explica Sarah Torre, la corrección sugerida “no abarca a muchos de los empleadores (ni evidentemente a todas las personas) con objeciones morales o religiosas que han de cumplir con el mandato”. Para cumplir con el mandato se requiere que los hombres y mujeres con sentimientos religiosos violen la doctrina de sus iglesias y de sus conciencias. Por tanto, con el presidente Obama, hemos vuelto a la tolerancia religiosa, según la ha definido algún burócrata en algún sitio.

Quizás es por eso por lo que no deberíamos celebrar a todos los presidentes por igual. George Washington “fue el espíritu director sin el cual no habría habido independencia, ni Unión, ni Constitución, ni República”, como expresó el presidente Calvin Coolidge. De hecho, estableció el camino por el que debería discurrir la presidencia de Estados Unidos. Es por eso por lo fue el “primero en la guerra, primero en la paz y primero en el corazón de sus compatriotas”.

President finally shows his face after $1m golfing weekend with Tiger Woods that White House didn't want world to see

• Obama played at exclusive Florida course on Sunday with Tiger Woods
• President refused to say if he had been beaten by the champion golfer
• Cost of Air Force One trips to and from Florida, along with hotel rooms, greens fees and exclusive golf lessons comes to $989,207
• Tried to mend fraught relationship with traveling press corps by 'hanging out' with them for 10 minutes on the flight back

By Meghan Keneally and Louise Boyle
PUBLISHED: 21:17 EST, 18 February 2013 

Pictures finally appeared of President Obama on Monday evening as he headed home to Washington after a relaxing golf weekend which was kept heavily under wraps.
The President was on the course on Monday for the third and final day of a Florida vacation with departing US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, the president's Chicago pal Eric Whitaker and White House aide Marvin Nicholson.

The President had enjoyed a round of golf with Tiger Woods on Sunday - a fact that only emerged by chance after media were banned from attending the event. The traveling pool of journalists who follow the President's every move were reportedly furious after being shut out of his round of golf and not being allowed on to the club  grounds.
 

Back in the swing of things: President Obama waves in the doorway of Air Force One as he departs from Palm Beach International Airport on Monday

Back to business: Obama jogs up the stairs of Air Force One upon his departure from Florida heading for D.C. (left) as an aide carries on the golf back of Obama's friend Eric Whitaker

Bags of fun: An aide heaves several golf bags up the stairs of Air Force One after weekend on the course with friends

 
It has long been a White House tradition that pool reporters cover the President's rounds of golf and even have the opportunity for a few questions on the course.

The President waved as he jogged up the steps of Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport on Monday evening while a White House aide heaved golf clubs and large bags on board.

When he landed back in Washington and walked across the White House lawn, several frustrated reporters collectively shouted to the President to ask if he had beaten Tiger Woods.

Despite appearing to have heard the question, the Daily Caller reported, Obama did not answer and just smiled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280855/Obama-pictured-leaving-1m-golfing-weekend-Tiger-Woods-imposed-controversial-photo-black-out.html#ixzz2LM9spNaQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook