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.