lunes, 19 de septiembre de 2016

Is it a Bank service or an Activist Bank, Wells Fargo?...Por que la doble-moralidad de la izquierda odia a la Madre Teresa de Calcuta?...Whoaaa what a succes and social development: Belgium euthanizes the first child!!!



Gay Activist Bank Wells Fargo Scammed Customers

By Susan Stamper Brown , CP Guest Contributor
September 14, 2016|12:38 pm
Susan Stamper Brown resides in Alaska and writes about culture, politics and current events.

If Wells Fargo was focused on bank charges and interest rates rather than political hot button issues, perhaps they wouldn't have had to fire thousands of employees for ripping off customers and be liable for millions in fines.

In a recent press release, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [CFPB] recounted that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. will pay "the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed," $185 million, because thousands of Wells Fargo employees "covertly" opened "more than two million deposit and credit card accounts," transferring funds from consumers' authorized accounts without their knowledge or consent, often racking up fees or other charges."

The press release says the employees who engaged in this "widespread illegal practice" were "spurred by sales targets and compensation incentives."

"Spurred" is a little mild, considering that CNN Money reports that a "pressure cooker environment" at Wells Fargo resulted in employees engaging "in all kinds of sordid practices."
Specifically, approximately 5,300 employees may have opened roughly 1.5 million deposit accounts, transferring funds from consumers' accounts to temporarily fund the new, unauthorized accounts. The CFPB reports that consumers were "sometimes harmed" from insufficient funds or overdraft charges. But it seems it was a win-win for Wells Fargo for those actions apparently helped the bank meet sales goals and also helped employees earn additional compensation.

Additionally, CFPB says employees applied for "roughly 565,000 credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by consumers, leading to "incurred annual fees, as well as associated finance or interest charges and other fees." They also issued and activated debit cards and created PIN numbers and fake email addresses to enroll unaware consumers in online-banking services.
All this, while Wells Fargo was simultaneously shoving social issues down consumers' throats as they've done for years.

Last year, in response to an advertisement featuring a lesbian couple, noteworthy Evangelicals like Franklin Graham said they'd had enough and closed out their accounts. Nonetheless, Wells Fargo remained resolute in its activist stance and has the right to do so.
But individuals also have the right to put their money in banks that leave what people do in the bedroom out of the boardroom.

During an interview in 2015 with the San Francisco Business Times, Wells Fargo executive Doug Case said, "… our CEO John Stumpf very frequently will talk about LGBT inclusiveness and, talk about walking the talk …"
Walking the talk? Sure, Wells Fargo repeatedly receives high rankings from the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the United States, the bank's latest scam is just one in a "string of infractions," reports USA Today. Wells Fargo "faced or settled four key areas of litigation as of the end of 2015" including FHA insurance claims, Visa and MasterCard interchange fees, mortgage products, and order of posting (overdraft) fees.
So why not try walking the bank talk? Obviously, Wells Fargo has lost its focus.

It is easy to do. But when a distraction sidetracks your purpose something's got to give. Wells Fargo's forgotten that a bank is not a social experimentation petri dish. It is a financial institution … a bank. Banks lend and borrow money and accept customers' deposits and pay interest in return. Then they use those funds to lend to other customers. Pure and simple.
Given that 5,300 employees, not just a handful of bad actors, were fired for what boils down to identity theft for profit, Wells Fargo would be better served serving its purpose, rather than investing time and energy bartering in social and political activism.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-activist-bank-wells-fargo-scammed-customers-169527/#jBf184mAXFkZY8gO.99

¿Por qué el odio contra la madre Teresa de Calcuta?

Madre Teresa
Existe para buena parte de la izquierda un único mandamiento. Naturalmente, no tiene nada que ver con el cristiano ni con amar a Dios o al prójimo de ninguna de las maneras. Es algo mucho más simple y onanista: Si eres de izquierdas, eres buena persona. De ahí se extrae un corolario igualmente simple: Si no eres de izquierdas, no puedes ser buena persona. Y aunque la lógica formal nos enseñe que ni partiendo de esa falsa premisa puede extraerse esa conclusión, lo cierto es que la lógica formal siempre ha tenido un papel muy escaso en la formación de las creencias políticas.

Como el mundo no suele encajar dentro de esquemas tan simples, estos progres se esfuerzan en meter la realidad dentro de su visión del mundo a martillazos. Este fin de semana, con motivo de la canonización de la Madre Teresa, pudimos ver en acción uno de ellos: la demonización de cualquier adversario, por más sagrado que pueda ser visto por la gente, siempre y cuando no se ajuste a su esquema mental. Como ejemplo, tanto los periódicos españoles izquierdistas Público y El País nos enseñaron lo “mala” que la Madre Teresa fue en realidad, entre otras cosas por ser católica y estar en contra del aborto. Y, naturalmente, el aquelarre de las redes sociales lo amplificó.

Teresa de Calcuta fue una persona real, y como tal tuvo luces y sombras, claro que sí. Pero es curioso que sólo pongan la lupa en alguien que, pareciendo la más pura definición de buena persona, al mismo tiempo es difícil encajar como militante izquierdista. Por poner un ejemplo, si buscan algo parecido a “El lado oscuro de Nelson Mandela” en estos mismos medios, no encontrarán nada. Porque a Mandela, mal que bien, sí lo podían colocar dentro de la izquierda política, y por tanto tenía permiso para ser buena persona, pese a que, como todo ser humano de carne y hueso, tuviera sus luces y sus sombras.

Así, no nos puede sorprender que llamen a la Madre Teresa “puto cacahuete miserable”. Porque lo esencial no es lo que se diga o haga, sino la pertenencia a la secta. Y la monja albanesa consagró, con mayor o menor acierto, su vida a los demás sin pasar por ese trago izquierdista. Así es difícil mantener la ficción de que la Iglesia no es más que un nido de pederastas. Normal que quienes se creen buenos por tener las ideas “correctas” sin necesidad de mover un dedo por el prójimo busquen la excusa que sea para condenarla. Lo que sea con tal de seguir viviendo en su complaciente océano de autosatisfacción moral.

© Libertad Digital

Belgium euthanizes first minor child under new law

belgium-licensed
Two years ago, Belgium’s King Philippe signed into law a bill that allowed children to be euthanized. It was a controversial move, one that drew international condemnation, including from the American Academy of Pediatrics. After the bill became law, any child could legally be euthanized, if they asked to be and had parental consent.

Children did not need to be terminally ill; they only needed to be “in great pain” and for there to be no available treatment. Defenders of the bill point to the requirement of approval from both doctors and psychiatrists as proof that the law is fair and safe — yet the entire reason the bill was passed to begin with was because children were already being euthanized in Belgium. Instead of prosecuting the doctors who were illegally euthanizing children, Belgium just made it legal.
And Belgium has just euthanized their first child.

The identity of the child has been kept private, but the child was reportedly a 17-year-old suffering from an incurable illness. The nature of the illness has also not been disclosed. A member of Belgium’s federal euthanasia commission confirmed that the child has been killed.

Wim Distelmans, a notorious Belgian doctor who euthanized a transgender man and blind twins and arranged an “inspiring” tour of Auschwitz, chairs Belgium’s Federal Control and Evaluation Committee on Euthanasia, and applauds the allowance of euthanasia for children. He admitted that few children had requested euthanasia, but “that does not mean we should deny them the right to a dignified death.” Belgian Senator Jean-Jacques De Gucht also spoke in favor of the child’s euthanasia. “I think it’s very important that we, as a society, have given the opportunity to those people to decide for themselves in what manner they cope with that situation,” he said.

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium for 14 years now, and the number of people requesting assisted suicide has steadily risen each year, including among those who are not terminally ill. Belgium is the only country in the world that allows minor children of any age to be euthanized.

viernes, 16 de septiembre de 2016

Is it "Liberty" to force 18 teenage Girls into a Single-Stall shower?... Derechos Humanos o Derechos Naturales..al fin que? ...Now cars are made in Mexico and clean water is gone in Flint?

SocietyCommentary

When ‘Liberty’ Forces 18 Girls Into a Single-Stall Shower Room

Separate locker rooms for men and women do not symbolize a sinister effort to force anyone's conformity with "gender stereotypes." (Photo: Eric Hernandez/Sheltered Images/Newscom)
On Wednesday, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of high school students and parents, asking the court to strike down a Minnesota school district policy that empowers a male student to enter the girls’ locker room and disrobe.
Not surprisingly, many girls have been distressed by the actions of the male student, which include twerking, grinding, and other sexually explicit actions. The response of the district and other authorities to the concerns has been a collective yawn.
This, along with recent actions by President Barack Obama’s Department of Education and Justice Department, illustrates the evolution of the push to manufacture special privileges for a select few.
The pretense that such demands don’t affect the lives of others now has been abandoned, replaced by two options: (1) get over it and get in line; or (2) be pushed to the margins of society, losing your reputation—and possibly your career—in the process.
In version 2.0 of the New Regime, even if you can point to a direct, immediate, and significant intrusion on your life, your opinion is irrelevant (and perhaps bigoted) when compared to “social progress.”  Keep reading

Derechos naturales vs. Derechos humanos

Bill of Rights - Carta de Derechos

Es importante destacar cómo durante años la retórica acerca de los “derechos” ha pasado de “derechos naturales” a “derechos humanos”. Esto se refleja en documentos de derechos como la Carta de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas o la Convención de Derechos Humanos europea, etc. Sin embargo, hace falta retomar el análisis de la tradición de los derechos naturales, no teorías utópicas o derechos abstractos. La tradición a seguir es la que el gran filósofo Edmund Burke delineó: Derechos naturales que provienen de la ley divina de Dios.

En la época de la Ilustración se utilizaba el término “derechos naturales” cuando se hablaba de los derechos de todo ser humano y que procedían de Dios o de la naturaleza. Sin embargo, a principios del siglo XX, el uso del término “derechos humanos” se hizo popular y se ha convertido en el estándar cuando hablamos de derechos. Pero estos términos son muy diferentes y estas diferencias hay que reseñarlas para poder entender por qué los conservadores rechazamos por completo el término “derechos humanos”.

Utilizar el término “derechos humanos” da pie a asumir sencillamente que son derechos otorgados por la humanidad. En el caso de “derechos naturales” se asume que son otorgados por una divinidad. Mientras que para nosotros el gobierno crea el orden político para gozar de nuestros derechos naturales, el concepto de “derechos humanos” implica que estos derechos los otorga el gobierno (humanidad).

Son enormes las implicaciones de esto último. Si los derechos humanos se derivan del gobierno entonces son subjetivos, es decir que la humanidad puede determinar en cualquier tiempo qué es un derecho o qué no lo es. En otras palabras, poder dar un derecho implica también poder quitarlo. Los derechos naturales son constantes y universales porque son derechos provistos por el Creador y nadie puede quitárnoslos. A eso hay que añadirle que el fanatismo democrático obliga a los propulsores de derechos humanos a crear y proponer una lista inacabable de derechos, como la salud, la educación, la vivienda, etc. que terminan siendo derechos basados en deseos de la humanidad.

Los derechos humanos se han convertido en la panacea que hace que cualquier deseo de la humanidad se transforme en un derecho. El problema de la subjetividad de lo que es un derecho humano hace imposible hacer una carta de derechos que contenga todos los derechos que proponen los creyentes de esta nueva religión.

En vez, los conservadores creemos en los derechos naturales y nos regimos bajo los siguientes criterios de los que surge nuestra visión de derechos: Igualdad ante los ojos de Dios, igualdad ante la ley, seguridad de nuestras posesiones y propiedades, participación en las actividades comunes y las consolaciones de la sociedad. Estados Unidos se fundó bajo estos criterios y ello se refleja en su magnífica Carta de Derechos, que no pretende ser un compendio de todos los supuestos derechos de la humanidad, sino de las cosas que el gobierno no puede hacer en su legitima búsqueda de organizar el orden en la sociedad. Los derechos contenidos en la carta americana de derechos se rigen bajos estos criterios.  Si un tirano alcanzara el poder, iría directamente contra esos derechos, por ejemplo, la posesión de armas, la propiedad, la libre expresión, etc…

Los derechos humanos son una creación atea para remover a Dios del debate sobre los derechos intrínsecos que cada uno tiene como humano. Es un intento de quitar la soberanía de la ley divina y transferirla a una humana basada en la razón. Es en esto que hemos visto cómo se ha utilizado el concepto de derechos humanos para llegar a conclusiones que favorecen a las campañas de la izquierda políticamente correcta. Esta concepción moderna de derechos se basa en principios débiles, con palabras deliberadamente diseñadas para estar abiertas a diferentes interpretaciones y para que sirvan a motivaciones políticas del momento.

© Libertad.org 

Trump: ‘It Used to Be Cars Were Made in Flint, and You Couldn’t Drink the Water in Mexico’

By Melanie Hunter | September 15, 2016 | 2:49 PM EDT
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at luncheon for the Economic Club of New York in New York, Thursday, Sept. 15, 2016. (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) –

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump told the Economic Club of New York on Thursday that the U.S. is a “silent nation of jobless Americans” as evidenced by the city of Flint, Mich., where jobs “have been stripped from the community and its infrastructure has totally collapsed.”

“It used to be cars were made in Flint and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. Now cars are made in Mexico, and you can’t drink the water in Flint, but we’re going to turn this around,” Trump said, referring to the Flint water crisis, where the water wastainted with lead after the city switched its water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River in 2014.

Furthermore, the Ford Motor Company announced Wednesday that it was moving all of its small car production to Mexico to boost company profits.

“Ford announced yesterday that they’re moving their small car production facilities to Mexico, and I’ve been talking about this a long while,” Trump said, adding that “to think that Ford is moving its small car division is a disgrace.”

“It’s disgraceful,” he said. “It’s disgraceful that our politicians allow them to get away with it.”

Trump’s unveiled his economy plan during the speech at the Economic Club of New York, saying it “will embrace the truth that people flourish under a minimum government burden and will tap into the incredible unrealized potential of our workers and their dreams.”

“My economic plan rejects the cynicism that says our labor force will keep declining, that our jobs will keep leaving, and that our economy can never grow as it did once before, and boy, oh boy, did it used to grow,” Trump said.

“We reject the pessimism that says our standard of living can no longer rise, and that’s all there is left to divide, because frankly, we’re looking at an economy now of no growth and redistribution of wealth, and that’s not going to work,” he said.

Trump’s economic plan establishes “a national goal of reaching four percent economic growth.”

“Over the next 10 years, our economic team estimates that under our plan the economy will average 3.5% growth and create a total of 25 million new jobs,” he said, adding that it will be deficit neutral.

“This growth means that our jobs plan, including our childcare reforms, will be completely paid for in combination with proposed budget savings,” Trump said.

“It will be deficit neutral. If we reach 4% growth, it will reduce the deficit. It will be accomplished through a complete overhaul of our tax, regulatory, energy and trade policies,” he said.

sábado, 9 de abril de 2016

PRO-ABORTION propaganda...OMG!...Is Islam a dangerous infection? ...Libertad Ordenada: La Verdadera Libertad!


Latest pro-abortion propaganda comic even lamer than you’d expect


Cecile Richards wants to “humanize” abortion, and a new comic strip beginning to make the rounds online is only too happy to help. Artists Tillie Walden and Anna Sellheim have made a comic stripabout their “lovely experiences” at Planned Parenthood. Before all the usual pro-abortion suspects start writing odes to this “powerful, thought-provoking” masterpiece, let’s take a look at whether it actually has anything meaningful to say.
It begins with a girl (supposedly Sellheim) nervously telling her pro-abortion activist mother, “I think I’m pro-life” because “I just don’t think I could ever get an abortion even if I get pregnant by accident.” Fortunately, her mother is relieved with she clarifies that “of course” other women should still be able to abort their babies. “I mean, I’m not crazy.”
Isn’t the point of effective message art such as political cartoons to, y’know, persuade? Usually it achieves this by cleverly illustratinghow a premise is right or wrong, or showing what this or that bit of conventional wisdom fails to account for. But this is just dialogue restating their premise, accompanied by an insult to the contrary viewpoint it doesn’t bother to confront. It’s literally nothing more than one of a million interchangeable pro-abortion comment thread exchanges put in word balloons above some characters.
For future reference, pro-abortion readers, this is why you have so much trouble persuading people to agree with you: you prefer to endlessly high-five each other over what you already think is obvious instead of bothering with real conversations with people outside of your echo chamber.
Fast-forward, and the now-adult daughter goes to Planned Parenthood to get a breast exam, and wouldn’t you know it? It’s just the nicest, friendliest place you can imagine! They play great music, they “aren’t judgmental!” (Heaven forbid!)
What she doesn’t mention is how the “breast exam” she was so grateful to Planned Parenthood for was no different than the self-exams anyone can do at home for free. Actual mammograms? Planned Parenthood admits it doesn’t do those, despite they and their supporters dishonestly claiming otherwise in the past.
NewDefundAd3
The comic goes on to recount Walden’s childhood in—where else?—Texas, “surrounded by misinformed talk of what Planned Parenthood was.” The example? A middle-school teacher telling a class full of kids that “abortions are VACUUMS that kill babies, and PLANNED PARENTHOOD is where they die.”
For a little extra oomph, there’s also a panel of the teacher sporting blank pupil-less zombie eyes saying “BABIES.” No sentence, no thought, just “BABIES.” Because that’s totally a realistic thing pro-lifers do all the time, right? Mindlessly chant “baby” like it’s a magic word, and we have no actual arguments that we ever even try?
The comic refutes this “misinformation” by pointing out that vacuums aren’t used in aborti—wait, no, it can’t do that, because abortion advocates themselves admit that nearly three-quarters of first-trimester abortions are done with vacuums. Former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino explains a first trimester abortion:
Well, maybe the comic goes on to explain how babies aren’t involved in abortion? No, most medical authorities recognize that fetuses are babies. Disputes that they “die” or are “killed”? Nope, both of those are self-evidently true. Well, maybe the misinformation was that Planned Parenthood doesn’t do abortions? Sorry, Planned Parenthood proudly confirms that it does more than 320,000 a year.
So with none of the “misinformation” the teacher allegedly spewed (which I’m gonna go out on a limb and predict never happened, despite the comic’s ostensibly biographical nature) actually being false, how do the authors counter it? By—you guessed it—another anecdote about how nice it is to visit Planned Parenthood? Walden’s appointment for cramp treatment found the facility “clean, private, and overwhelmingly welcoming”:
Living without pain has made me happier and more productive, and the fact that there was a Planned Parenthood in our town made that possible. It gives us so much peace of mind knowing that it’s there for us when we need it.
And they all lived happily ever after.
Except for the babies Planned Parenthood killed. Or the teenage girls whose rapes Planned Parenthood helped cover up. Or the various women who’ve suffered thanks to Planned Parenthood’sabysmal health standards. Or the young people who got pregnant because Planned Parenthood encouraged them to sexually experiment. Or the people who have contracted HIV because Planned Parenthood told their sex partners keeping it secret was their decision.
But besides all of them…
Even if Planned Parenthood’s positive services somehow did outweigh all the pain and suffering and death it spreads, the authors still wouldn’t have much of a case, considering (a) they do steadily less of the “good things” by the year, with breast cancer exams, pap tests, and prenatal care dropping by between 41% and 58% from 2009 to 2013; and (b) alternative low-income women’s health providers dramatically outnumber Planned Parenthood centers in every state, including Walden’s own Texas:
Pregnancy centers like this new one add to the real choices women have.
So what was the point of this comic? The implications it makes about abortion are false, the true things it says are irrelevant, and it has nothing to say about anything that is relevant to why people find Planned Parenthood controversial.
This is propaganda at its laziest and most self-absorbed—and therefore, a perfect Rorschach test for whoever inevitably hails it as putting pro-lifers in our place.

Pat Robertson: Islam Is A Dangerous Infection That Must Be Eliminated

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson said that countries like Belgium and France must respond with “violence” to the “infection” of Muslim immigrants, telling his co-host Terry Meeuwsen that these countries must fight Islam in the same way that a body fights a deadly disease.
Otherwise, “Europe is doomed. Doomed!” he said, before adding: “And we have a president here in America who refuses to name it, refuses to identify it and refuses to give us what’s needed to kill the infection.”
Robertson: Our bodies are amazingly resilient and they can throw off a small infection, something comes up and the body has mechanisms to deal with it and the body closes in on the invader and kills it and the body stays strong. But there comes a time if the infection is allowed to spread, and it will spread rapidly when the invader overtakes the healthy body, at which point there is sickness and then ultimately death.

No society should allow some alien body to come to its midst that preaches terror, preaches overthrow, preaches violence and preaches another form of government. We shouldn’t have that.

Now, that’s what is being allowed in Belgium and France and other parts of Europe in the name of political correctness. And the so-called socialist liberals think, ‘I want to be open and I want to be welcoming to these people who come in.’ Okay, a few of them, fine, assimilate into the society, learn the language, learn the customs and be Belgians. But these people are not. They’re keeping on with their Islamic customs, Islamic dress, they’re speaking Arabic and they’re in the middle of Belgium and they’re growing and metastasizing and it won’t be long before they overwhelm the healthy body. Here in America and other places, we can only stand so much infection before it overwhelms us.

Meeuwsen: But once you’ve allowed that to occur and roots have gone down into a city or a region, is it too late to change that?

Robertson: Not really, but it’s going to take violence. They’ve got to move in with the police dragnets.

Meeuwsen: Do you think they have the stomach for that?

Robertson: Well, no. That’s the problem. You don’t want to, you know, it seems like you’re violating people’s civil rights, you don’t want to take away their liberty and violate the thing you are, but people have got to stand up and recognize the threat and if they don’t do it the society’s doomed. That’s what’s happening. All of our shows are showing, I mean our reporters are showing that Europe is doomed. Doomed! Because they refuse to acknowledge the existence of a pathogen in their midst, an infection, that has come in, and that’s what radical Islam is, it’s an infection. And we have a president here in America who refuses to name it, refuses to identify it and refuses to give us what’s needed to kill the infection. As a matter of fact, he wants to take more of them and bring them into the country.

Meeuwsen: Crazy.

Robertson: It’s crazy.

Meeuwsen: And in doing so we lose our own rights.

Libertad ordenada

Miss LibertyLa palabra libertad es un término muy usado en el mundo, pero poco entendido. La libertad tiene dos lados, estar libres de algo, principalmente de  las restricciones y estar libres para algo, para un perfeccionamiento, para un propósito en la vida limitado por la ley y el orden. Para disfrutar de  verdadera libertad ambos lados tienen que estar siempre juntos, por ejemplo para que ser libre si no tengo un propósito, un destino o un perfeccionamiento. Sin embargo, en nuestro mundo moderno, ha ocurrido un divorcio entre ambos lados, en el mundo occidental la libertad se ha redefinido como una libertad sin restricciones y niega los propósitos, mientras otros países mayormente autoritarios tienen la libertad para los propósitos basados en la ley y  el orden mientras niega la libertad de escoger.
La libertad para sociedad occidental se ha convertido en lo que el comentarista británico Peter Hitchens llama “selfism” (yoísmo), la creencia en que todo lo que hacemos es correcto, que somos libres para realizar cualquier acción, previsto que nosotros creamos que no estamos haciendo daño a nadie. En otras partes del mundo, la libertad para un propósito es la libertad que existe pero que niega la libertad sin restricción, la libertad para escoger, pero donde prosperan la ley y orden. Es tiempo de recuperar lo que es libertad y porque estos dos lados siempre tienen que estar juntos para obtener verdadera libertad, una libertad ordenada y respetuosa de la ley.
Para el conservador, la libertad solamente puede existir dentro de un orden social y no cree en la visión de libertad abstracta sin restricciones o sin propósito. Entiende que sin orden social basado en el orden que facilita el gobierno, en el alma humana no puede existir una verdadera libertad.
Edmund Burke, padre del conservatismo, la definió como “La libertad a la que me refiero es la libertad social. Es ese estado de cosas en el que la libertad está garantizada por la igualdad de restricción”. Es decir, no tenemos libertad si no tenemos orden y restricciones a nuestras pasiones, porque si no ponemos en peligro las mismas libertades que apreciamos. Si el ser humano fuera un ser racional, la libertad sin restricciones, sin tener la ley, orden y propósito sería suficiente, pero éste no es el caso.
La libertad no puede estar divorciada del orden, es decir, no hay libertad absoluta. En palabras de Dostoyevsky: “Empezar con libertad absoluta, es terminar con despotismo absoluto”. Este orden está basado en lo que la cultura occidental ahora quiere desechar: Tradición, cultura, prescripción, instituciones sociales y doctrinas religiosas. La libertad y el orden vienen de la ley natural, La libertad sólo puede florecer si existe un orden de gobierno y del alma humana, algo que Burke y Dostoyevsky entiendieron con claridad: La capacidad de maldad del ser humano.
Esta noción de libertad ordenada tiene que tomar en consideración la virtud de la prudencia. Si nos regimos por esta virtud, evitamos que surjan políticas opuestas a la libertad que apreciamos. La libertad queda asegurada si se actúa prudentemente en el cambio y en la permanencia de las tradiciones, costumbres e instituciones vitales para el orden social.
Esta prudencia de la permanencia se debe enfocar en la defensa y preservación del documento más importante para nuestra nación: La Constitución de Estados Unidos. Ese documento es que preserva nuestras libertades individuales y el que está detrás del éxito de nuestro país.
La verdadera libertad existe si la humanidad tiene la capacidad de poder restringir sus pasiones. Es libertad para hacer lo correcto, no licencia para hacer lo que nos dé la gana.© Libertad.org

viernes, 8 de abril de 2016

Gay People "The Real one percent" ...How abortion is not a crime?...A child in the womb is a plan from God!!!

Should American Christians Be Concerned About Their Own Religious Freedom?

image: http://graphic.christianpost.com/images/new_article/ic_print.gif
image: http://graphic.christianpost.com/images/new_article/ic_print.gif
Sign Up for Free eNewsletter ››
BY DR. RICHARD D. LAND , CP EXCLUSIVE
April 8, 2016|9:24 am
image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/61978/richard-land-portrait.jpg?w=262
image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/61978/richard-land-portrait.jpg?w=262
Richard Land Portrait(By CP Cartoonist Rod Anderson)
Conservative Christians in America are growing increasingly concerned about their own religious freedom. They should be.
Lifeway Research recently released polling data that revealed rapidly growing concern and significant divergence of opinion concerning the erosion of religious liberty in America.
Lifeway found that 63% of those polled said they believe Christians are experiencing accelerating intolerance toward their religious beliefs, up from 50 percent in 2013, an increase of 9 percent in just two years' time.
As the concern over threats to religious liberty has surged, the data identified very different perceptions among groups of Americans, depending on their age and their religion or lack thereof.
First, only 42 percent of those aged 18 to 24 believe religious liberty is declining in the United States. Conversely, 62 percent of those 25 or older see varying degrees of corrosion of Americans' religious freedom. Perhaps that is because those older Americans have much longer frames of reference and thus can remember a time when there was far less hostility to Christians in America.
The Lifeway Research poll also surfaced significant opinion disagreement among both religious and non-religious Americans.
Most Christians (70%) and 82% of Evangelicals believe Americans are increasingly intolerant of their faith convictions. Also, 76 percent of Americans of all faiths who attend worship services at least weekly see increased intolerance of America's Christians.
However, only 48% of "nones" — those identified with no faith tradition — believe intolerance of Christians is increasing while 59% say Christians complain too much about how they are treated. One is tempted to ask, "How would you know — you are not the ones being discriminated against?" Perspective aside, nearly half of even this group of Americans acknowledges increased discrimination against Christians.
At the very least, the Lifeway Research reflects the fact that Americans have a general sense that the ground has shifted into a culture that is far more intolerant of the free exercise of traditional Christian faith than was true even a few years earlier, much less a generation or so ago.
While such attempts to circumscribe, curtail, or silence Christians' free exercise of their faith in the public square have been gathering momentum for years, such efforts have accelerated since the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states in June of last year.
Evidence abounds from sea to shining sea that Christians whose faith compels them to refuse to bow the knee to the prevailing cultural zeitgeist are confronted with increased intolerance and even legal prosecution. These Christians find their own government being "weaponized" against them and their faith commitments.
The nation has shifted, and the resulting tremors are causing cultural earthquakes across the land.
The sort of laissez-faire, "live and let live" moral relativism of the late sixties has morphed into an intolerant totalitarianism that seeks to punish any variance to its Orwellian groupthink.
A half-century ago campuses were inundated with cries of "don't tell me what's right or wrong! All truth is relative. Your truth is no better than mine."
Now the dominant narrative more resembles a politically correct Stalinism than the libertarian moral relativism of yesteryear.
image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/90629/gods-not-dead-2.jpg?w=262
image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/90629/gods-not-dead-2.jpg?w=262
God's Not Dead 2(Photo: Pure Flix Entertainment)"God's Not Dead 2" will be released in theaters on April 1, 2016.
Last weekend, the movie "God's Not Dead 2" opened nationwide at number five in box office receipts.
It tells the story of a high school history teacher teaching at a fictional, but ironically named, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial High School. She honestly answers a student's question about whether there was a connection between Dr. King's non-violent philosophy of civil disobedience and the "turn the other cheek" teachings of Jesus.
She is accused and put on trial for proselytizing, or "preaching," in her classroom and is faced with losing her job, losing her teaching license, and being ruined financially. Without completely revealing the plot, suffice it to say that fellow Christians come to her defense, and God answers prayers.
During the course of the trial, "Pastor Dave" is informed along with other local pastors that the court has subpoenaed all their sermons for the past three months. Some of the pastors are in denial concerning the ever-increasing levels of government intimidation with which they are confronted. One in the group reminds them that this has already happened in Houston, and it led to the pastors going to court and ultimately winning in court, based on the First Amendment. Pastor Dave responds by concluding that today's pressure will become tomorrow's persecution unless they take a stand now. And he does. Subsequently, we see him turning in a letter explaining why he feels compelled by conscience to not comply with the court order.
After the movie has ended and all the credits have run across the screen, including a list of the scores of real court cases where Christians have been taken to court for the free exercise of their faith, an additional scene comes on the screen.
Pastor Dave and a colleague are walking on the sidewalk in front of their church when two policemen from the ironically named "Hope Springs" police department show up and arrest Pastor Dave for defying the court order to turn over his sermons. They cuff him, place him in the squad car, and take him to jail.
Like Martin Luther in the sixteenth century, Pastor Dave said, "Here I stand, I can do no other."
Is this scene merely a coming attraction for "God's Not Dead 3" — or is it a prediction of our future as Christians in America?
Dr. Richard Land is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and executive editor of The Christian Post.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-concerned-religious-freedom-intolerant-liberal-161127/#DzDq8vUvsA8Kddkf.99

Should American Christians Be Concerned About Their Own Religious Freedom?

image: http://graphic.christianpost.com/images/new_article/ic_print.gif
image: http://graphic.christianpost.com/images/new_article/ic_print.gif
Sign Up for Free eNewsletter ››
BY DR. RICHARD D. LAND , CP EXCLUSIVE
April 8, 2016|9:24 am
image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/61978/richard-land-portrait.jpg?w=262
image: http://images.christianpost.com/full/61978/richard-land-portrait.jpg?w=262
Richard Land Portrait(By CP Cartoonist Rod Anderson)
Conservative Christians in America are growing increasingly concerned about their own religious freedom. They should be.
Lifeway Research recently released polling data that revealed rapidly growing concern and significant divergence of opinion concerning the erosion of religious liberty in America.
Lifeway found that 63% of those polled said they believe Christians are experiencing accelerating intolerance toward their religious beliefs, up from 50 percent in 2013, an increase of 9 percent in just two years' time.
As the concern over threats to religious liberty has surged, the data identified very different perceptions among groups of Americans, depending on their age and their religion or lack thereof.
First, only 42 percent of those aged 18 to 24 believe religious liberty is declining in the United States. Conversely, 62 percent of those 25 or older see varying degrees of corrosion of Americans' religious freedom. Perhaps that is because those older Americans have much longer frames of reference and thus can remember a time when there was far less hostility to Christians in America.
The Lifeway Research poll also surfaced significant opinion disagreement among both religious and non-religious Americans.
Most Christians (70%) and 82% of Evangelicals believe Americans are increasingly intolerant of their faith convictions. Also, 76 percent of Americans of all faiths who attend worship services at least weekly see increased intolerance of America's Christians.
However, only 48% of "nones" — those identified with no faith tradition — believe intolerance of Christians is increasing while 59% say Christians complain too much about how they are treated. One is tempted to ask, "How would you know — you are not the ones being discriminated against?" Perspective aside, nearly half of even this group of Americans acknowledges increased discrimination against Christians.
At the very least, the Lifeway Research reflects the fact that Americans have a general sense that the ground has shifted into a culture that is far more intolerant of the free exercise of traditional Christian faith than was true even a few years earlier, much less a generation or so ago.
While such attempts to circumscribe, curtail, or silence Christians' free exercise of their faith in the public square have been gathering momentum for years, such efforts have accelerated since the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states in June of last year.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-concerned-religious-freedom-intolerant-liberal-161127/#DzDq8vUvsA8Kddkf.

Conservative Pundit: Gay People And Allies Are 'The Real One Percent'

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media warns in a column today that the “real one percent consists of the open and closeted homosexuals and their allies in positions of power,” and that this gay cabal is “determined to expel normal, white heterosexuals from the newsroom.”
Besides pushing out white heterosexuals from the media, since it considers whiteness to be “a cancer,” Kincaid also believes that this sinister group wants to defend “perverted behavior” and ensure that the “special rights of homosexuals and even ‘transgendered’ [sic] people suddenly take precedence over the constitutional rights of religious believers.”
White straight people, Kincaid warns, are now the least protected group in society.
The media are once again going nuts over the fact that a state legislature has acted to protect Christians and their churches and businesses from the demands of various sexual minorities. As we have noted before, the power of the real one percent has enormous influence in the major media. The real one percent consists of the open and closeted homosexuals and their allies in positions of power in the major media, academia and the corporate world.

When they want to make an example of Indiana, North Carolina and now Mississippi, they can do so. It is something to behold. They have the ability to make an entire state look like a hotbed of homophobia and hate. The special rights of homosexuals and even “transgendered” people suddenly take precedence over the constitutional rights of religious believers.

What is being demanded is nothing less than the “right” of a man to dress up as a woman and invade the privacy of real women and girls in a ladies’ restroom. That is one of the “rights” that is at stake in what is happening in Mississippi. The legislature and the governor have rejected what is clearly perverted behavior and have affirmed the rights and privacy of those of who understand the science of DNA and biological differences.



The idea of concentrating on such elementary questions as who, what, when, where, why and how, is now considered old-fashioned journalism. Instead, the focus is on who reports the news, as they define it, and whether they are members of protected groups. Being white is not a protected class of people. White people are the villains, unless they identify as a member of a protected group. That leaves white heterosexuals as people who have to be demoted or dismissed.



Indeed, whiteness is such a cancer in the newsroom that a “remedy” is needed. These white people have to be put in their place. They must be cut down to size.



You may have thought these news organizations were in competition with one another. That’s what they want you to believe. But when it comes to promoting the homosexual agenda, including the “rights” of transgenders, they are on the same page. That’s why the coverage of these sexual issues by so many news organizations that seem to differ in their ideological orientation is in fact similar in bias and approach. The real one percent is in charge and growing stronger by the day. They are now determined to expel normal, white heterosexuals from the newsroom.

FILED UNDER

ORGANIZATIONS:

Accuracy in MediaBarbWire

PEOPLE:

Cliff Kincaid

TOPICS:

Anti-Gay

Unedited abortion video proves Carly Fiorina’s statement on ‘fully formed fetus’ was right

Carly Fiorina sent shockwaves through the abortion industry when she boldly called out Planned Parenthood during the CNN GOP presidential debate on live television. Fiorina was the only candidate to hammer Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby for the undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, saying that continuing to fund Planned Parenthood reflected poorly on the moral character of this nation. One statement in particular rankled pro-abortion activists:
Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, “We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” This is about the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this [Planned Parenthood defunding] bill, shame on us.
The abortion lobby immediately leapt into action, calling her a liar, along with various media outlets that tried to discredit her. Planned Parenthood Vice President Dawn Laguens wrote a furious letter to Fiorina, claiming that the footage does not exist. Unfortunately for Planned Parenthood and its supporters, the footage does exist — and the full video has just been released.
video-fetus
The footage Fiorina spoke of was filmed by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, which was given to the Center for Medical Progress, and shows an intact delivery abortion – not a miscarriage as claimed by abortion supporters. It was filmed at an abortion clinic.
A few seconds of the footage could originally be seen in this Center for Medical Progress video, in which former StemExpress technician Holly O’Donnell speaks about how she and a colleague procured the brain of an aborted child whose heart was still beating – at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte (The Alameda) in California. As O’Donnell speaks about harvesting the child’s brain, CBR’s footage of a born alive, aborted baby is shown (5:58-6:25). While only a few seconds of this video were featured in the Center for Medical Progress video, the full footage has now been released by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.
Gregg Cunningham, executive director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, described the video:
CBR and the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), in whose undercover Planned Parenthood investigative video the CBR abortion footage appears, have been falsely accused of misrepresenting a miscarriage as an abortion. The first segment of the unedited video depicts the abortion itself, with the baby delivered alive and struggling in the abortionist’s gloved hand. Segments 2 and 3 depict the baby still moving in a stainless steel pan after repeatedly being handled abusively by the abortionist. Segments 4 and 5 are static gynecological shots of the baby’s mother.
You can see the video below.
WARNING: The footage is extremely graphic, contains some nudity, and may be disturbing to viewers:

This unedited footage shows that Carly Fiorina was not lying. Babies are being born alive after abortions and left to die, in violation of state and federal laws. There is no defending what can be seen on this video, and it proves Carly Fiorina right.
She was not exaggerating or lying, and she was correct in saying that if we allow the taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood to continue, then the character of this nation is severely lacking, and we have failed in one of our most basic duties: to protect the right to life.

Pope Francis: Every Child in Womb Is Part of the Eternal Loving Plan of God

By Fr. Frank Pavone | April 8, 2016 | 10:15 AM EDT
Pope Francis (AP Photo/Riccardo de Luca)
All of us at Priests for Life welcome the document issued today by Pope Francis called "Amoris Laetitia" ("The Joy of Love"), which summarizes his teaching following the two worldwide synods of bishops held in the last two years on the topic of the family.
We encourage all the clergy and laity to carefully read, study, discuss and apply this document, which repeats the Church's teaching on life, marriage and family, and urges all of us to encourage one another with compassion and care as we strive to live that teaching.
In regard to our own ministry in defense of the unborn, we thank the Holy Father for the beautiful words of this document about pregnancy and motherhood, in particular the following passage:
“Every child growing within the mother’s womb is part of the eternal loving plan of God the Father: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jer1:5).
“Each child has a place in God’s heart from all eternity; once he or she is conceived, the Creator’s eternal dream comes true. Let us pause to think of the great value of that embryo from the moment of conception. We need to see it with the eyes of God, who always looks beyond mere appearances.” (n. 168)
He states in section 83, “Here I feel it urgent to state that, if the family is the sanctuary of life, the place where life is conceived and cared for, it is a horrendous contradiction when it becomes a place where life is rejected and destroyed. So great is the value of a human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life, which is an end in itself and which can never be considered the property of another human being.”
The Holy Father also encourages adoption, stating, “Adopting a child is an act of love, offering the gift of a family to someone who has none.” (N. 179)
Finally, since our director of African-American Outreach is Evangelist Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., we were happy to see Dr. King quoted in this document, in the section where the Pope encourages a love that faces up to all difficulties. Part of the quote from Dr. King reads, “And when you come to the point that you look in the face of every man and see deep down within him what religion calls ‘the image of God,’ you begin to love him in spite of [everything]. No matter what he does, you see God’s image there.” (N. 118)
Priests for Life will continue to reflect and teach on this document in the days and months to come.
Father Frank Pavone is the national director of Priests for Life.
Fr. Frank Pavone
Fr. Frank Pavone
Father Frank Pavone is the national director of Priests for Life.