Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta abortion. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta abortion. Mostrar todas las entradas

sábado, 9 de mayo de 2015

Christians and how to face today's crisis!...Esperanza para America "Comunista" Latina!...Piecemeal Abortion abomination!!!

How can all Christians face today's crises? With a single voice, leaders say

By Elise Harris


Hands in prayer at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Denver, Jan. 17, 2015. Credit: Catholic Charities/Jeffrey Bruno (CC BY 2.0).
Inter-church leaders from around Europe have joined voices in calling for greater ecclesial communion in the face of modern challenges, such as increased secularization and global Christian persecution.

“Today the churches and ecclesial communities in Europe are facing new and decisive challenges, which they can only respond to effectively by speaking with a single voice,” the Pope said May 7.

He was speaking to delegates of the Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE) and the Conference of European Churches (CEC), who are gathered in Rome May 6-8 for their annual Joint Committee.

In his speech to the delegates, the Pope referred to legislation which, “in the name of a principle of misinterpreted tolerance,” prevents citizens from “freely expressing and practicing” their personal beliefs.

He also gave note to the poor policies surrounding the “dramatic and often tragic” migration of thousands fleeing war, persecution and poverty, saying that it is “the duty” of European churches and ecclesial communities to work together in promoting a culture of solidarity and hospitality.

Although the path to full ecclesial communion and reconciliation is difficult, the Pope said that despite the hardships, it is “already an integral part of the process of reconciliation and communion” that the Lord is asking, so long as it is lived “in charity and in truth.”

The Joint Commission has been meeting since the 1970s, and has led to numerous initiatives geared toward promoting ecumenical communion, including the three Ecumenical Assemblies of Europe.

Basel, Switzerland marked the place of the first assembly in 1989. The second took place in 1997 in Graz, Austria, while the third and most recent was set in Sibiu, Romania in 2007.

Members of the CCEE include 33 Bishops' Conferences – all from the European continent – as well as the Archbishops of Luxembourg, of the Principality of Monaco, the Maronite Archbishop of Cyprus, the Bishop of Chişinău (Moldova), the Eparchial Bishop of Mukachevo and the Apostolic Administrator of Estonia.

With 39 total members, the CCEE is spread over a territory comprising 45 nations, while the CEC is composed of 120 churches and church bodies within Europe.

In his opening remarks before the Pope’s speech, Cardinal Peter Erdo, president of the CCEE, spoke of “the urgency of being together to witness to today’s world – and especially in a secularized Europe.”

Christians around the world currently find themselves in the midst of situations of persecution and discrimination, he observed, noting that this “sadly takes place in European countries, too.”

“It as if someone wants to shelve the Christian presence in society and ensure faith is absent from public life,” he said.

The cardinal also referred to the “ecumenism of blood,” calling it a clear sign of love for Christ that those who are persecuted give witness to, often at the cost of their lives. Their sacrifice, he said, shows that love triumphs over death.

“Those of us here present do not want to waste this blood which has been shed, but we want to welcome the gift of the lives of so many Christians, sure that this makes us more united to Jesus Christ and in Him between ourselves,” he said.

Anglican bishop Christopher Hill, president of the CEC, also addressed the commission. In his remarks, Bishop Hill noted that given recent attacks in Europe such as that carried out against Paris satire paper Charlie Hebdo by Muslim extremists, the themes of freedom and liberty are “a highly topical matter.”

Today Europe is still “in danger of fragmentation and conflict,” he said, and pointed to problematic themes such as such as migration and asylum, the ongoing conflict in the Ukraine, and an increasing economic disparity, which frequently generates injustice, as aggravators of instability.

“We pledge ourselves to continue to work closely together as Catholics in CCEE and as Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants in CEC. Together we represent all the classical churches of the European continent,” he said.

Bishop Hill closed with a reference to Pope Francis Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, saying that by working together, the various churches and ecclesial communities of Europe share in the profound joy of the Gospel.

Ecumenism, he said, quoting a passage from the exhortation, “can be seen as a contribution to the unity of the human family – Division between Christians...adds further causes of conflict on the part of those who should instead be a leaven of peace.”

Esperanza en medio del pantano populista

EstatizacionSí hay algo más sorprendente en América Latina que el esmero casi calvinista con el que se intentan una y otra vez recetas fracasadas: La determinación de pequeños grupos de combatir y resistir el asalto populista en los países latinoamericanos.
El triunfo de la libertad siempre ha sido obra de minorías, dijo Lord Acton, y un claro ejemplo de ello fue la reciente visita a Chile de Gloria Álvarez, invitada por la Fundación para el Progreso. En momentos en que el cáncer populista hace metástasis en la región, la joven y carismática guatemalteca ha logrado inspirar a decenas de miles de personas a través de América Latina a resistir y exigir la restauración de principios e instituciones republicanas.
Su visita a Chile ha dejado varias lecciones: la primera es que el liberalismo está cada vez más “in” entre la juventud y el socialismo cada vez más “out” aunque siga predominando. La segunda es que esta pelea contra el populismo y el socialismo no puede darse sin coraje, es decir, hay que salir de la queja en el almuerzo y hacer algo al respecto.
La tercera es que, así como lo están haciendo muchos jóvenes, el mundo empresarial debe asumir un rol clave en la defensa de la ideas básicas de la sociedad libre en lugar de acomodarse con el gobernante de turno para seguir llenándose los bolsillos.
América Latina ya no aguanta más el mercantilismo y los privilegios y ningún orden podrá sostenerse si la idea se instala de que quienes han tenido éxito lo han tenido como producto de arreglos corruptos con el poder político. Un sistema de libre mercado y honesto es así el mejor antídoto contra el populismo y la única garantía de que haya prosperidad transversal. Es además el mejor negocio en el largo plazo, pues la espiral estatista intervencionista que promueven los populistas termina invariablemente en crisis y amenazas concretas de expropiaciones, nacionalizaciones y otras.
Pero más allá del cambio de mentalidad requerido para acabar con la cultura populista en la región, vale la pena enfocarse en los brotes de libertad que subsisten en el pantano latinoamericano de la demagogia y la opresión. En Venezuela el Cedice, liderado por Rocío Guijarro aun a riesgo de perder la vida, difunde las ideas de la sociedad libre entre la juventud sembrando semillas que serán vitales para el futuro del país.
En Argentina, Fundación Libertad, dirigida por Alejandro y Gerardo Bongiovanni y Libertad y Progreso liderada por Agustín Etchabarne, entre muchos otros think tanks, defienden heroicamente la dignidad de los argentinos contra un gobierno opresor y creador de miseria como el de Cristina Kirchner. Estudiantes por la Libertad es otra organización notable que existe en todo el mundo y que ha reunido a decenas de miles de jóvenes en torno a los principios de la sociedad libre y que crece con rapidez en América Latina.
En Ecuador el Instituto Ecuatoriano de Economía Política que preside Dora de Ampuero hace un trabajo formidable de educación y difusión de ideas en condiciones extremadamente adversas. En México, Caminos de la Libertad, liderado por la incansable Bertha Pantoja con el apoyo del Grupo Salinas ha logrado resucitar las ideas de la sociedad libre en un país en que parecían desaparecidas.
En Bolivia la Fundación Nueva Democracia hace un trabajo admirable frente al populismo autoritario de Morales, mientras que en Guatemala, la Universidad Francisco Marroquín, una de las mejores del continente, ha definido su posición filosófica como liberal nutriendo a todo Centroamérica de profesionales e intelectuales de gran influencia que han logrado triunfos espectaculares contra el aparataje populista.
Son por cierto muchas más las organizaciones y grupos en los diversos países que no se rinden y que asumen grandes riesgos por recuperar una institucionalidad seria y al servicio de las libertades. Ud. podrá pensar que todas ellas palidecen frente a las fuerzas de que disponen los populistas. Y es verdad. Pero como dijo Margaret Mead, jamás debemos subestimar el poder que tiene un pequeño grupo de personas comprometidas de cambiar el mundo.

Ending Piecemeal Abortion – State By State

Posted: April 23, 2015
Printer-friendly version
A thought experiment.  Imagine a woman falling asleep in 1955—the year the “The Mickey Mouse Club” debuted—and waking in April 2015 to hear the reply of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl.) to Rand Paul’s question: “Is it okay to kill a 7-Pound Baby in the uterus?”  Schultz’ reply: “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved.  Period.  End of story.”  The groggy woman would ask, “But surely no ‘women or their doctors’ would ever support such a thing?”  Those around her would reply, “Where ya been, honey?  It’s the procedure of choice for legal abortions past 12 weeks.” “What?” she’d say, “Abortions are legal?!”  And so on.  For her, Schultz’ remark would elicit confusion, disbelief, and horror.  For those of us who have grown up under the odious Roe years, it is a familiar reminder of the moral pits into which humans are capable of sinking.
Ms. Schultz was no doubt unsettled by the news of the past two weeks from Kansas and Oklahoma.  On April 7 and April 13, Governors Sam Brownback of Kansas and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma signed into state law respective bills known as the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act,” criminally prohibiting the gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D & E) abortion procedure.
The D & E, called in the legislation “dismemberment abortion,” is the most common procedure for second trimester abortions, which number about 10% (or 100,000) of the one million abortions performed annually in the U.S.  At this stage of development, children have a beating heart, their own blood types, distinct fingerprints, even little eyelids, toes and fingernails.  They can grimace, swim and grasp objects.  Since dismemberment abortions are never medically necessary to save the life of the mother in acute medical emergencies, they are performed for only one reason.
The D & E begins with cervical dilation using either an osmotic dilator or the drug misoprostol.  An osmotic dilator is a thin rod made of seaweed or synthetic materials.  When inserted into the cervix, it absorbs moisture from the surrounding tissues and swells, thus expanding the cervix.  Misoprostol, taken in tablets, are prostaglandins that soften the cervix making it easier to penetrate with abortion tools.
When the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor inserts a pair of grasping clamps through the birth canal into the uterus, clasps onto a piece of the fetus’ lower body, and pulls it back out through the cervix and vagina; the delicate fetal body easily rips apart.  The soft and serene world of the womb explodes for the fetus into a chaotic hell as again and again the doctor enters the sacred domicile with the deadly instrument, removing first legs, then torso, then arms, and finally the head (crushing it with his grip so it can fit through the dilated canal).  Then in a grotesque exercise of quality control reminiscent of an adult Sid Phillips (from Toy Story) playing with a macabre erector set, the doctor reassembles the fetal body parts to guarantee that all limbs and tissues were “safely” removed. 
In a startling endorsement of the D & E, New York City-based abortionist Kathleen Morrell praised the dismemberment procedure saying, “my [second trimester] patients overwhelmingly choose D and E.  They are able to be asleep and comfortable for the procedure and then can go home to their own beds at night.”  Fifty bucks says they don’t sleep that night.
In another attempt to explain away the “unpleasant” details, a disgruntled LA Times editorialist recently opined:
The fact is, lots of surgical procedures sound horrific; most are intensely invasive and unpleasant to describe.  [Really?  Which ones?]  In this case, the ‘dismemberment’ is being done to fetuses that are not viable outside the womb and that scientists agree cannot feel pain.  (Don't be fooled by the unscientific claims of some anti-abortion groups that they can.) 
Wish though we might that the writer’s claims were true, no such scientific consensus exists.  On the contrary, the research I’ve done tells me that a majority of disinterested scientists agree that fetuses can experience pain of the most exquisite sort by the middle of the second trimester.
The National Right to Life model legislation adopted in Kansas and Oklahoma enacts that doctors who “knowingly” dismember a “living unborn child” and extract “such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus” will be subject to a misdemeanor on the first offense, and a felony for subsequent violations.  The legislation makes no exception for rape or incest, only to preserve a woman’s life or prevent irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.  According to the New York Times, similar bills have been proposed in Missouri, South Carolina and South Dakota.
Pray to the good God that the momentum continues.
- See more at: http://www.culture-of-life.org/e-brief/ending-piecemeal-abortion-%E2%80%93-state-state#sthash.hxpODODx.dpuf

miércoles, 11 de marzo de 2015

Contraception access INCREASES abortions...! Is there an American Dream?...Paises Desdichados: Venezuela y Argentina!!!

ABBY JOHNSON

Confessions of a former Planned Parenthood director
Featured Image
We've all been had. Even top pro-abort leaders are now admitting the obvious: that contraception access INCREASES the abortion rate.

Sorry folks. Contraception access increases abortions. And here’s the proof.

Every time I post something on my Facebook about abortion, there will inevitably be someone who makes a comment that says something like this, "Don't women know how to use birth control these days? What is wrong with them? With so many birth control options these days, no one should ever have an abortion."
I supposed that is a really common misconception...that birth control reduces the abortion rate. But is that true? Look at this quote from Ann Furedi, the former director of British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Britain's largest abortion provider: 
Often, arguments for increased access to contraception and for new contraceptive technologies are built on the assumption that these developments will bring down the abortion rate. The anti-choice movement counter that this does not seem to be the case in practice. Arguably they are right. Access to effective contraception creates an expectation that women can control their fertility and plan their families. Given that expectation, women may be less willing to compromise their plans for the future. In the past, many women reluctantly accepted that an unplanned pregnancy would lead to maternity. Unwanted pregnancies were dutifully, if resentfully, carried to term. In days when sex was expected to carry the risk of pregnancy, an unwanted child was a chance a woman took. Today, we expect sex to be free from that risk and unplanned maternity is not a price we are prepared to pay.
It is clear that women cannot manage their fertility by means of contraception alone. 
Contraception lets couples down. A recent survey of more than 2000 women requesting abortions at clinics run by BPAS, Britain’s largest abortion provider, found that almost 60% claim to have been using contraception at the time they became pregnant. Nearly 20% said that they were on the pill. Such findings are comparable to several other smaller studies published during the last decade… It is clear that contraceptives let couples down… The simple truth is that the tens of thousands of women who seek abortion each year are not ignorant of contraception. Rather they have tried to use it, indeed they may have used it, and become pregnant regardless.
Here's a statistic from the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's research arm. This stat makes Planned Parenthood look terrible, so I can't imagine that this is not accurate. They have absolutely nothing to gain by putting this out there: "More than half of women obtaining abortions in 2000 (54%) had been using a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant."
How is it that abortion supporters understand that birth control does not reduce abortion, yet pro-lifers don't? Birth control was created so that we could separate sex from procreation. How do we not get that, pro-lifers? When you separate the act of sex from babies, of course abortions occur.
Follow Abby Johnsonon Facebook 
Let's look at a quote from Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, famous abortion-supporting feminist: "Until a 'perfect' method of contraception is developed, which will probably never happen, periods of heightened consciousness and extended practice of birth control will inevitably mean a rise in abortions."
In a book written by Petchesky, she comments on the research of demographer and feminist Susan Scrimshaw who linked rising abortions to wide acceptance of the birth-control pill:
But Scrimshaw reminds us that the pill, as a more effective method of reversible contraception that women had ever known, contributed to a climate of expectations that women need not and should not have to fear an unwanted pregnancy. Having a baby when you didn't want to became "unthinkable" for new generations of women, or for older generations in new stages in their lives. This change consciousness undoubtedly contributed to the rising abortions, for women who did not use the pill as well as those who did.

I'm not saying that you should only have sex when you are fertile. But to be perfectly honest, you should only have sex when you are open to life. Because believe it or not, babies are many times a result of sex. And that's the way it was intended to be.   
Look at these studies and articles, all showing that as the contraception rate increases, the abortion rate increases. 
Bottom line: Contraception does not reduce abortion. You may say, "Well, I'm on birth control for xyz health problem." Okay. I wrote an article specifically for you. You can view that here. 
The great news is that you don't have to use birth control to space your children. Natural Family Planning works and is as effective, and sometimes more effective, than the birth control methods out there. Check out these websites for more information. 
 Wayuu Bags

The Dark Side of the American Dream

  • New York City skyline
MARCH 6, 2015
A Most Violent Year (2015, 125 minutes) is the third film from writer-director J.C. Chandor who wrote and directed 2011’s Margin Callabout a Lehman Brothers-like firm in the early days of the 2008 financial crisis. Margin Call explored the complex relationships between white collar workers, corporate executives, and the firm’s customers in the face of economic ruin. With A Most Violent Year, Chandor returns to similar themes. But in this case, he focuses on a privately-owned heating oil business in 1981 New York City made successful by the relentless determination of Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac), an immigrant who has clawed his way to the top of his industry through a commitment to salesmanship and slow-and-steady growth.
Morales also faces economic ruin if he cannot complete a purchase of a valuable piece of real estate which will allow him to crush his competition.
Morales prides himself on playing by the rules of the marketplace. That is, he is committed to beating his competition by providing a better service to his customers. The problem is that Morales’s competitors do not have similar hang-ups, and they are more than happy to employ dirty tricks such as violently hijacking Morales’s trucks full of heating oil and stealing their contents.
On top of this, Morales must deal with an aggressive and politically ambitious assistant district attorney, the teamsters union, and other shady figures from organized crime outfits who threaten his business.
In the opening scenes, one of Morales’s drivers, Julian (Elyes Gabel) is badly beaten when his truck is hijacked by unknown thugs. Morales is appalled by this disregard for fair play and tells Julian “these men are cowards. They’re too weak to earn a living or fight with their own hands. They’re too stupid to think of something [legitimate] to do.”
Indeed, the film portrays Morales, who was once a driver himself, as being genuinely concerned for the welfare of his employees. He considers Julian, whom Morales personally drives home from the hospital, to be an excellent employee whose job will be waiting for him when he recovers. But, of course, Morales also knows that he can’t survive if thieves continue to steal his heating oil.
The police find Morales’s truck, with all the oil removed, shortly thereafter. However, the police are of no help whatsoever, and not surprisingly so, since New York City is in the midst of a crime wave and the murder rate is at an all-time high. For Morales, the police are dead weight who do nothing to prevent or prosecute theft. To emphasize this, we then learn that Morales and his company are being investigated by the assistant district attorney for a variety of regulatory infractions (i.e., what libertarians call “non-crimes”) such as “price fixing” and related offenses, including tax evasion. As we soon see, however, it’s unclear as to what exactly Morales is paying taxes for. Morales asks the district attorney for help in stopping the thefts, but as far as he is concerned, he tells Morales, “you’re all stealing from each other, which is a refreshing change from what you’ve been doing to your customers and the taxpayers.” If Morales is going to stop the theft of his oil, he’s clearly on his own.
Meanwhile, the teamsters union (which represents Morales's drivers) is threatening to illegally arm all truck drivers in the face of the hijacking threat. Morales fears that violence may spin out of control and also clearly fears New York’s draconian anti-gun laws which will come down hard on Morales if his drivers are found with handguns. Thus, the drivers remain helpless and the hijackings continue.
Morales’s family even becomes endangered as one of his competitors apparently sends a gunman to terrorize the family in their suburban home. Morales’s wife, who comes from a family with organized crime connections, demands Morales take more decisive action, by which she means actions of ambiguous legality. She threatens to take care of things herself, and notes “you’re not going to like what’ll happen once I get involved.”
Morales does find himself being pulled into the organized crime world more and more. Following the assistant district attorney’s public announcement that Morales is under investigation, he loses his line of credit from the bank and must turn to the New York underworld to find the funding he needs to complete a time-sensitive purchase of a valuable oil-storage facility on the East River. Thanks to the assistant district attorney, he must then beg his own shady competitors for money, and although his entrepreneurial ingenuity is key to the solution, the film hints that ultimately, Morales’s business is saved by the thievery of others.
Thanks to Chandor’s preference for subtlety, this movie is neither preachy nor didactic, so Morales’s moral position is never entirely clear. Is he a nearly-blameless entrepreneur who has merely had the misfortune of being surrounded by people of questionable moral character? Or has Morales played the system all along, and his uprightness is mostly just something he believes in his own mind? What we do know is that A Most Violent Year is a very convincing story of how the so-called American dream has been corrupted by ambitious politicians, unchecked crime, and a state that is impotent except when it comes to prosecuting people who provide the actual goods and services on which society relies. At the same time, the film’s point may be that capitalists and entrepreneurs have willingly participated in the system’s corruption, but if that is the point, it doesn’t obscure the overall quality of this film.
Image source: iStockphoto

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Los países desdichados

VenezuelaBloomberg Business reveló recientemente que Venezuela es el país más “miserable” del mundo. La traducción es demasiado literal. En español sería más apropiado decir que es el más “desdichado”.
La aseveración de Bloomberg surge de la aplicación de una simple fórmula acuñada hace más de medio siglo por el economista norteamericano Arthur Okun: se suman el nivel de desempleo y el índice de precios. Con esos elementos se compila el Misery Index.
Venezuela, en efecto, tiene la inflación más alta del planeta, lo que se refleja en el índice de precios, pero su nivel de desempleo es bajo, menos de un 7%, aunque la mayor parte de los puestos de trabajo han surgido en el sector público, dado que miles de empresas han debido cerrar sus puertas por las desquiciadas medidas antieconómicasdel gobierno chavista.
El segundo país en ese Índice de Desdicha es Argentina. A una escala menor, el gran país sudamericano también es víctima de una altísima inflación. Nada nuevo bajo el sol. Lleva décadas de intermitentes malos gobiernos. Como el bandoneón que tanto gusta en aquellos parajes, se expande o contrae frecuentemente. Ahora está en una fase aguda de contracción.
La inflación y el desempleo son dos flagelos que explican la desgracia de una sociedad, pero no son suficientes. Yo agregaría otros ocho factores para construir el decálogo de las desdichas capitales.
El desabastecimiento sería el tercero. Pasarse la vida en una fila esperando para poder comprar algo es una maldición que suele materializarse en los países socialistas de economía centralizada y controles de precios. Los venezolanos ya han descubierto el horror de pelearse a puñetazos por comprar unos pollos o tres rollos de papel higiénico.
El cuarto sería el porcentaje de delitos. Es espantoso vivir con la guardia en alto, encerrado en la propia casa, sometido a un virtual toque de queda porque tan pronto se pone el sol los ladrones, asesinos y violadores salen a cometer sus fechorías. Según el International Crime Index, que computa una docena de graves violaciones de la ley, Venezuela es el segundo país del planeta en número de delitos (84,07). El peor es Sudán del Sur (85,32), un país recién estrenado en medio de una guerra civil. Más de 50 se considera una sociedad peligrosa. Singapur, la menos peligrosa, luce un 17,59.
El quinto es el nivel de corrupción de la administración pública. Como se trata de delitos ocultos, hay que confiar en la opinión general de la gente. La institución dedicada a medir estas percepciones es Transparencia Internacional. De acuerdo con ella, Venezuela es una pocilga. Es el 160º de 175 países escrutados. El peor, con mucho, de Hispanoamérica.
El sexto es la protección y la calidad de la justicia. Si cuando usted tiembla llama a la policía para que lo proteja, es una buena señal. Si cuando la policía se acerca usted tiembla, la situación es muy grave. A la labor de los agentes del orden se agrega la existencia de leyes razonables, jueces justos, procesos rápidos y cero impunidad.
El séptimo es la movilidad social. La posibilidad real de mejorar la calidad de vida por medio del esfuerzo propio. No hay situación más triste que saber que, hagas lo que hagas, tu vida seguirá siendo pobre, y lo más probable es que mañana será peor que hoy.
El octavo es el PIB per cápita. Es decir, la suma del valor de los bienes y servicios producidos por una sociedad durante un año. Se podrá alegar que la repartición es desigual, pero hay una evidente correlación entre el PIB per cápita y la calidad de vida. Como regla general, los 20 países con mayor PIB per cápita del mundo son los que encabezan el Índice de Desarrollo Humano que publica la ONU.
El noveno elemento es la libertad. Aunque no se menciona, los países menos libres, aquellos en los que la camarilla del poder toma todas las decisiones, aporta todas las ideas e impone sus dogmas por la fuerza, son los más pobres y los menos dichosos.
El décimo, por último, es la cantidad de emigrantes. No hay síntoma más elocuente del fracaso de una sociedad que el porcentaje de gente que tiene que escapar de ella para sobrevivir. Cuanto más educada es la emigración –como sucede con la venezolana–, más evidente es el desastre. Cuando emigran los emprendedores, los ingenieros, los médicos, las personas que teóricamente pudieran labrarse un buen porvenir en la patria en que nacieron, es señal de que estamos ante sociedades fallidas.
Hay que compilar ese índice. Cruzar esas variables sería muy útil.

miércoles, 10 de diciembre de 2014

$18 Billones de Dolares es la deuda de USA...quien creen que la va a pagar?....The Left and its love with Rape....Abortion clinic worker convert to Pro-life!!!

EE.UU.: $18,000,000,000,000 de deuda

DeudaEn este Black Friday 2014, la deuda de Estados Unidos sobrepasó los $18 billones. Eso representa una deuda de $124,000 por cada hogar americano o de $56,378 por persona.
El país tardó 205 años en acumular su primer billón de dólares de deuda en el año 1981, pero sólo nos ha llevado 403 días acumular nuestro billón más reciente. Incluso resulta complicado pensar en cifras tan grandes; si tuviera que contar hasta un millón necesitaría una semana; si quisiera contar hasta un billón tardaría 31,000 años.
Al igual que ocurre con nuestras deudas personales, puede que en realidad contraer deudas tenga algunas ventajas. La tele de pantalla plana y los regalos de Navidad que compramos endeudándonos probablemente incrementen nuestro nivel de vida y bienestar. Sin embargo, esta ganancia a corto plazo se paga a menudo con sacrificios a largo plazo. Y la moneda de pago de ese sacrificio son los intereses.
Los intereses son el precio de la deuda. De modo que cuando alguien compra un televisor mediante un plan de pagos, en realidad estamos comprando dos cosas: el televisor y la deuda que lo acompaña. Aunque pueda que merezca la pena gastar unos cuantos dólares extra para ver a nuestros jugadores de fútbol favoritos en HD, gastar una gran parte de nuestros ingresos en intereses puede reducir seriamente nuestra calidad de vida ya que tendremos que renunciar a otras compras para pagar los intereses.
Ése es el punto al que ha llegado nuestro país con sus intereses por la deuda nacional.
El año pasado, Estados Unidos gastó $430,000 millones sólo en el pago de intereses. Eso significa que cada año los contribuyentes están pagando $3,500 únicamente en intereses. Se trata de un dinero que no se está destinando a pagar carreteras, puentes, educación, investigación médica o defensa.
Esto se pone aún más aterrador. Los tipos de interés de la deuda nacional están históricamente bajos en este momento, en torno al 2.5%. Cuando suban, el pago de los intereses aumentará exponencialmente gracias a la “maravilla” de los tipos compuestos. Digamos que los tipos de interés suben al 5%, aún bajos según los estándares históricos. Eso significa que deberemos cerca de $1 billón anual sólo en intereses. ¡Es casi dos tercios de lo que el gobierno federal recauda cada año por la totalidad del impuesto sobre ingresos!
Menos servicios y mayores impuestos: el despilfarro del Tío Sam podría acabar perjudicándonos a todos.
 Original Wayuu Bags

SHAPIRO: To The Left, Lying About Rape Is Just Dandy

     
This week, Rolling Stone printed an editor's note retracting one of the most highly praised pieces of investigative journalism in its history. That piece, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, alleged that several members of the University of Virginia fraternity Phi Kappa Psi, had raped a 19-year-old student named Jackie, including with foreign objects, as she lay on a floor covered with broken glass. The article resulted in the university suspending the fraternity's activities, and national outrage over the so-called "rape culture" on campus.
That rape culture supposedly leads to one in five women being sexually assaulted on campus -- a faulty statistic from a poll that didn't even ask women if they were raped or sexually assaulted, and instead defined sex while inebriated at any level as rape. With regard to reported rape, the federal government reports a rate of just 1.3 per 1,000 Americans. That is, of course, far too high. But it is not a rape culture by any plausible definition.
Nonetheless, the narrative of women as victims of brutish male society must be forwarded at all costs, for political purposes. If Americans are brutish sexists waiting to rape unsuspecting women, bigger government becomes a necessity. That's why President Obama has cited that one-in-five statistic, and suggested that America experiences "quiet tolerance of sexual assault."
In order to forward that narrative, all rape stories are treated as fact sans investigation of any kind. And so Jackie's story of gang rape received plaudits across the media landscape.
Then it fell apart.
The Washington Post quickly debunked the story. According to the Post, the fraternity says there was no event the night Jackie was allegedly raped, Jackie's friends "have not been able to verify key points in recent days," and one of the men named in Jackie's report stated that "he never met Jackie in person and never took her out on a date."
As the Rolling Stone report collapsed, members of the left jumped to defend Jackie. Sally Kohn of CNN.com tweeted that people should stop questioning Jackie's story: "While aspects of UVA rape story now in question, still unsettles me that pouncing by skeptics mirrored sort of doubt rape victims often face." Feminist Melissa McEwan wrote, "If Jackie's story is partially or wholly untrue, it doesn't validate the reasons for disbelieving her."
Under this logic, Atticus Finch was the villain in "To Kill a Mockingbird." After all, how dare he question the rape allegations of a victimized woman and defend Tom Robinson?
But for the left, it's narrative first, facts second.
The same holds true regarding allegations made by HBO star Lena Dunham, who wrote of her own alleged rape at the hands of an Oberlin "college Republican" named Barry. When it turned out that Barry, a readily identifiable person from Dunham's days at Oberlin, did not rape her, the media largely went silent; Dunham still has not spoken on the issue.
Narrative first. Facts second.
Here is the reality: All decent human beings believe that rape is evil. They also believe that false allegations of rape are wrong. These two positions are not mutually exclusive. They complement one another. False rape allegations do actual rape victims a tremendous disservice: to lump in false accusations of rape with true accusations of rape makes people more skeptical of rape victims generally, a horrible result. Rape should be taken seriously; rape accusations should be taken seriously. That means taking factual questions seriously, not merely throwing the word "rape" around casually, without evidence, and without regard for truth. 
Featured Image
Jewels Green
Jewels Green

I worked at an abortion clinic. I was 100% pro-choice. Then two women opened my eyes.

For much of my life, I was so entrenched in the pro-choice worldview that I would completely shut down conversations that invited me to examine or question my position. Even with my history of being pressured into an abortion at 17 and surviving my subsequent suicide attempt, I remained a vehement and vocal advocate for abortion. I even worked at an abortion facility for five years. College, grad school, marriage, giving birth to three babies—nothing swayed me from my myopic view of a "woman's right to choose" abortion.
Four Novembers ago that began to change.
While discussing abortion and surrogacy in an online forum with a group of women I knew from a natural childbirth support group, the topic of in-vitro fertilization came up. I held fast to the standard pro-abortion rights theorizing that a "bunch of cells" could not possibly be as worthy of our respect and protection as an adult woman. I was baffled (but intrigued) by two voices speaking clearly, consistently, and compassionately (against the tide of a dozen opponents) in support of the right of these microscopic humans to live to maturation.
In the ensuing conversations neither Lindsey nor Lauren ever berated, belittled, or otherwise bashed those of us who disagreed with them—but they also never backed down. Their unshakable belief and eloquent defense of the value of all human life put a chink in the armor I'd spent decades carefully constructing. What was life if not a continuum from conception to death? Wasn't I once a tiny collection of cells? I finally began thinking about these issues of life in a new way.
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE! 
As the forum expanded to discussions about surrogacy, I was primed for further interior examination of my long-held, never-before-questioned position... and I slowly began to consider that a child in womb just might be, in fact, a child.
Then I learned of a surrogate who was paid her full contract price to abort the baby she was carrying after the biological parents were disappointed by an in-utero diagnosis of Down syndrome. The chink in the armor became a chasm and the truth was blindingly clear: abortion is wrong. Abortion kills a living, growing member of the human family. And to quote Feminists for Life, women deserve better than abortion.
Only as I look back do I see the blinders. My willful ignorance, my avoidance of true introspection, my stubbornness. I can never thank Lindsey and Lauren enough for their unwavering witness to the sanctity of life. These two remarkable women (unknowingly at the time) set me on a path of discovery that culminated in my wholehearted acceptance of the right to life from conception to natural death and of a life devoted to furthering the cause of LIFE.
Thank you, Lindsey.
Thank you, Lauren.
Reprinted with permission from SecularProlife.