US and EU to push for abortion and homosexuality..they want to impose their views no matter what!...Igualdad Salarial - progresistas (comunistas) en Acción...Constitutional amendment to ban Abortion: Yes is Possible!

US and EU push Africans once more on abortion and homosexuality

BY STEFANO GENNARINI, J.D.

• Thu Apr 10, 2014 17:45 EST

NEW YORK, April 10, 2014 (C-FAM.org) - Africans are crying foul after wealthy Western countries ambushed them with a draft resolution that re-opens the troublesome issues of abortion and homosexuality in UN negotiations.

“You have set a precedent here that will not be forgotten,” said a representative from Cameroon at a briefing three weeks ago. Western countries have proposed a resolution for the annual UN Commission on Population and Development that surreptitiously endorses abortion and homosexuality, even though Africans asked to avoid those controversies.

The U.S., European and some Latin countries are increasingly insistent on homosexuality and abortion ahead of negotiations over a new UN development agenda in September, desperate to include homosexuality and abortion in future development efforts.

Africans for their part don’t want to be pressured on these issues, and have repeatedly stated that these are matters best left to countries individually.

When powerful western governments made their intentions for the resolution known, the Africans on the commission were furious.

The resolution includes references to regional agreements that touch on abortion and sexual orientation and gender identity—contentious issues that do not enjoy universal support at the United Nations. It was prepared by Uruguay, which is chairing the commission this year.

During negotiations this week the Africans repeated their position.

They don’t want a resolution to touch on substantive issues. They would rather have a resolution that defers to the UN General Assembly with regards to abortion and homosexuality in UN development policies.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE! 

In 2010 the General Assembly re-committed countries to the development policies agreed to at the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, and clearly announced that it would not re-negotiate those policies. This year marks the 20^th anniversary of the seminal development scheme that made sexual and reproductive health a UN development issue.

The Cairo conference dealt with sexual and reproductive health, but did not include homosexual rights or a right to abortion.

African countries and other developing nations are adamant, now as in 2010, that the Cairo policies should not be re-negotiated or re-interpreted to include abortion and homosexuality.

They are worried about re-opening sensitive issues like sexual rights, abortion and homosexuality. The Cairo policies could not have been adopted had they included such rights, and the issues are still controversial 20 years later.

In fact, no UN treaty or political document recognizes homosexuality or abortion as rights. The General Assembly has been conspicuously silent on these issues because so many countries still have laws that prohibit and restrict abortion as well as laws that punish sodomy.

Together with key allies in Asia and Latin America, Western countries insist that the UN framework must recognize homosexuality and abortion. It is a human rights issue to them.

The commission comes on the heels of another UN conference where Western countries had to twist arms in order to get their way with the Africans. It remains to be seen how far they are willing to go this time around.

All indications are that Western governments have invested heavily in this meeting. Several of the UN officials and government officials that negotiated the Cairo agreement 20 years ago are at UN headquarters. Abortion groups and UN agencies are also out in force raising the issue of abortion and homosexuality at every turn.

Día de la “Igualdad Salarial”: Perjudicando a las mujeres en el trabajo

Amy Payne

Hoy es el “Día de la Igualdad Salarial” para aquellos que creen que el macho somete a las mujeres.

Convencer a la gente de que está teniendo lugar una injusticia es una magnífica manera de impulsar la propia agenda política y de ahí es de dónde surge el “Día de la Igualdad Salarial”. Eso es lo que supone la afirmación por parte de la izquierda de que las mujeres de Estados Unidos sólo cobran alrededor de 77 centavos por cada dólar ganado por los hombres.

Pero como ha explicado Genevieve Wood, colaboradora sénior de The Foundry, ese argumento proviene de comparaciones creativas, es decir, no precisas.

El problema de esta estadística del 77%, calculada por la Oficina del Censo de Estados Unidos, es que no compara los salarios de mujeres y hombres con la misma profesión. En su lugar, agrupa a todas las profesiones. De ese modo, si los profesores de secundaria ganan menos que los congresistas (¡hablando, por cierto, de algo que se debería arreglar!) y hay más mujeres que son profesoras y más hombres en el Congreso de Estados Unidos, entonces sí, las cifras mostrarán que los hombres ganan más que las mujeres. Pero si se compara el salario de una congresista con el de un congresista, ¿sabe qué? Ganan lo mismo.

De hecho, la discriminación laboral por razón de sexo ha sido ilegal desde 1963. Y desde entonces, “Las mujeres no sólo han alcanzado a los hombres en muchos ámbitos profesionales, sino que las mujeres jóvenes y solteras está superando a sus homólogos masculinos de áreas urbanas”, comenta la analista de la Fundación Heritage Romina Boccia, adscrita a la donación Grover M. Hermann. “No hay de qué sorprenderse, puesto que las mujeres ya obtienen más títulos de licenciatura, máster y doctorado que los hombres”.

El “Día de la Igualdad Salarial” se supone que ha de servir de estímulo para las mujeres, pero el presidente Obama y sus socios están aprovechando la oportunidad para impulsar dos propuestas normativas que perjudicarían a las mujeres (y a los hombres) en sus puestos de trabajo.

1. Subir el salario mínimo.

La Casa Blanca está impulsando la idea de que un aumento del salario mínimo ayudaría a las mujeres, ya que éstas componen la mayoría de la población activa en diversas industrias caracterizadas por sus bajos salarios. Lo que eso realmente implica, sin embargo, es que subir el salario mínimo supondría un duro golpe para las mujeres, puesto que esos son los trabajos que se perderían con una subida salarial. De hecho, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso estima que aumentar el salario mínimo federal hasta $10.10 a la hora acabaría con 500,000 empleos, mientras que el Instituto de Políticas de Empleo prevé que el 57% de esos trabajos pertenecería a mujeres.

2. “Justicia salarial” obligatoria.

Otra mala idea que el Congreso ya ha rechazado en el pasado y que está surgiendo de nuevo: la “Ley de Justicia Salarial” (PFA). Sin embargo, ya existe una ley que prohíbe la discriminación basada en el sexo del trabajador, se trata de la llamada Ley de Igualdad Salarial y que ha estado en vigor desde 1963. ¿Entonces qué haría la Ley de Justicia Salarial por el sueldo de las mujeres?

El experto laboral de la Fundación Heritage, James Sherk, explica que la propuesta está más relacionada con favorecer las demandas judiciales que con cualquier otra cosa.

La PFA permite que los empleados demanden a las empresas que pagan a sus trabajadores sueldos diferentes, incluso si esas diferencias no tienen nada que ver con el sexo de los empleados. Esas demandas judiciales se pueden presentar por perjuicios ilimitados, concediéndoles unos ingresos extraordinarios a los abogados litigantes.

¿Cómo perjudicaría eso a los trabajadores? Pues bien, no se puede obtener un aumento por ser un empleado con un alto desempeño, ya sea un hombre o una mujer, si es obligatorio que todo el mundo con el mismo puesto de trabajo gane el mismo salario. Sherk observa la presión a la baja que eso supondría para los sueldos:

Se debería permitir que las compañías recompensen el buen desempeño sin arriesgarse a ser demandadas. Castigar a las compañías que no adopten unas escalas salariales uniformes reduciría los sueldos tanto de hombres como de mujeres.

El líder de la mayoría en el Senado, Harry Reid (D-NV), ha indicado que esta semana presentará ambas normativas y que el presidente Obama va a firmar órdenes ejecutivas que aumentarán la cantidad de información disponible sobre los salarios de los contratistas federales en nombre de la “igualdad salarial”.

En realidad, son normativas como éstas las que están sometiendo a todos los trabajadores americanos.

The untold story of how El Salvador passed its total ban on abortion with prayer and a socialist

BY PETER BAKLINSKI

• Fri Apr 11, 2014 13:54 EST

TORONTO, April 11, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – It is totally illegal for a mother to abort her child in El Salvador, the smallest country in Central America. But the amazing story about how a country with a name meaning “savior” came to constitutionally protect its unborn children from conception — despite ongoing massive international pressure to the contrary — remains practically unknown.

“It was a miracle,” said Julia Cardenal, president of Sí a la Vida (Yes to Life Foundation) of San Salvador, to attendees at Campaign Life Coalition’s national pro-life conference last weekend in Toronto.

Dan Zeidler, president of the Family Life Council, and Julia Cardenal, president of Yes to Life Foundation, speak at the National Pro-life Conference in Toronto April 5, 2014.

Credit: Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews.com

Cardenal related to about 200 attendees how underdeveloped countries like El Salvador depend on foreign aid to help improve the country. But she said that such aid usually comes with “reproductive rights” strings attached.

She remembers one cabinet minister saying after returning from a foreign assistance meeting in Europe: “All these people want to do is talk about abortion.”

“If you go to the international conferences of the United Nations, it’s incredible how in every treaty they want to put [in] abortion,” she said.

In 1998, a massive pro-life effort resulted in El Salvador removing from its 1973 penal code exceptions that permitted abortion, including to save the mother’s life, and in cases of rape and serious congenital disorder. Abortion was now illegal, but the victory was tenuous.

Pro-lifers feared foreign aid groups would too easily woo the country into signing onto a treaty that would override the penal code and effectively bring back abortion. They knew the only way to guarantee protection for the unborn was a constitutional amendment that no treaty could override.

Cardenal and her group began a national campaign for a constitutional amendment that would “defend the right to life from conception.”

They went mainstream with their message. They visited schools. They educated people across the country “about abortion and why it is important to defend life from conception.”

They passed the first hurdle when about half of the country’s legislators voted for the amendment. But for the amendment to be enshrined in the constitution, it had to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the next parliamentary period.

But then an election was called and a significant number of pro-life legislators lost their seats to socialists. Pro-lifers felt sure the amendment was doomed.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE! 

“We thought it was going to be impossible to get it, but we said we have to try. We have to do our best,” said Cardenal.

Pro-lifers immediately ramped-up their efforts, calling for a national prayer campaign. The spiritual battle reached its height during the last three days of the legislative period for that year.

“We sat for three days inside and outside the legislative assembly praying the rosary. We would go [up to legislators] with holy water on our hands and [pat their back or shake their hand and] say: ‘Hi how are you.’”

What happened next shocked everyone.

“When the time came for the vote, the first one who spoke was a socialist woman who said: ‘I’m going to give my vote as a woman and as a medical doctor for the constitutional amendment.”

“After that, there was no vote against it,” said Cardenal to applause.

“We could not believe [it]. It was a miracle.”

As of February 3, 1999, El Salvador began to “recognize as a human person every human being since the moment of conception.”

In spite of such a decided victory, the international abortion lobby has continued attempts to bring abortion back, even though El Salvador boasts a relatively low maternal mortality rate, said Cardenal.

In 2006, the New York Times produced what critics denounced as a ‘hit piece’ against the country’s pro-life movement. The piece highlighted a tale of woe of a woman who was reported to have had an illegal abortion when she was 18 weeks pregnant and was sentenced to thirty years in prison.

A LifeSiteNews investigation at the time, however, found the story to be entirely false since court documents prove the woman was actually found guilty of infanticide after she strangled her full-term baby shortly after birth. The New York Times initially refused to correct the story, but later issued a correction after the paper’s ombudsman called them out.

Last June, United Nations human right experts and abortion advocates attempted to use the ‘hard case’ of a Salvadoran woman who suffered from lupus and who carried a baby with a fatal condition to change the law against abortion. The “Beatriz” case backfired when the mother delivered a baby girl through an emergency caesarian section who died within hours from natural causes. The mother meanwhile progressed towards recovery.

Cardenal said that El Salvador’s pro-lifers have to be constantly on their guard against opening the door to abortion even the slightest bit.

She says hard work and prayer will win in the end. “We have to do our work, but our work is done through prayer, because if we don’t have the Spirit … there is no way,” she said.

Save the CONSTITUTION!...Nosotros obligados a Obamacare mientras los políticos se autoexcluyen!...Discriminación contra colegios católicos en California!

Review--The Liberty Amendments: Amend the Constitution--to Save It

 

by Joel B. Pollak 12 Aug 2013

Radio host Mark Levin does not follow the news cycle. He often opens his shows by warning listeners that he will not talk about the the day's headlines, or play clips from cable TV programs. Instead, he focuses on agendas: those of the "Statists," i.e. the progressive left; and those of the constitutional conservatives to whom, and for whom, he speaks. 

Those conservatives have struggled to find a way forward. Until now.

Levin's The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, released Aug. 12, is an ambitious plan to save the American political experiment from the encroachments of big government in Washington, D.C.

Yet his solution is not a political one that looks for new ways of winning elections, or a policy formula to enact conservative ideas. Levin proposes to amend the Constitution itself--not once, but eleven times.
He goal is to motivate and mobilize fellow conservatives to push for a national convention to propose new amendments, under a never-before-used provision of Article V of the Constitution. Before meeting, the convention will require the assent of two-thirds of the states; afterwards, its proposals will require the approval of three-fourths.

Levin, however, is confident of eventual success. He sees no other alternative.
Last week, Levin granted an extensive interview to Breitbart News about The Liberty Amendments, and about detailed aspects of each of his eleven proposed amendments. The full interview presents an overview of the book itself--a well-written, fluent and smooth read, elegant in its interweaving of history, its scholarship, and its passionate argument that while the amendment process may be long, the time to start is now.

More generally, the book has three main strengths.
The first is that it identifies the key challenge facing the conservative movement as a constitutional one--not a "demographic problem" that must be rectified through identity politics and pandering to various groups; and more than just a lack of credible leadership. The main problem facing conservatives, Levin suggests, is their failure to present an alternative to the left's statist project. CONTINUE READING

La administración Obama se salta la ley al darle al Congreso una dispensa de Obamacare

Edmund Haislmaier

Hace unos días, la administración Obama hizo pública la propuesta de una regla elaborada por la Oficina de Administración de Personal (OPM) con el efecto de permitir que los miembros del Congreso y su personal adquieran una cobertura de seguro médico dentro de los nuevos sistemas especializados (tal y como requiere Obamacare) y que utilicen los enormes subsidios libres de impuestos que reciben por su actual cobertura según el Programa de Beneficios Médicos para Empleados Federales (FEHBP) para pagar su cobertura con los nuevos sistemas especializados de seguro médico.

Como mis colegas y yo ya hemos señalado, el gobierno federal realmente no tiene autoridad legal para pagar la cobertura médica de los trabajadores federales dentro de un plan que no sea uno de los planes contratados por la OPM según el Título 5, Capítulo 89 del Código Federal de Estados Unidos, que autoriza a la OPM a operar el FEHBP.

En su nueva regulación, la OPM apunta a la definición general de plan médico recogida en el Título 5, Capítulo 8901(6), que dice:

“plan de beneficios médicos” significa una póliza o contrato de seguro colectivo, un acuerdo de servicios hospitalarios o médicos, un contrato de afiliación o suscripción o alguna disposición colectiva similar proporcionada por un operador con la finalidad de ofrecer, pagar o reembolsar los gastos de los servicios médicos;

Luego la OPM afirma despreocupadamente que:

Aunque, conforme a su autoridad según el Capítulo 89 del Título 5, la OPM no tendrá ninguna función en la “contratación” o la “aprobación” de los planes de beneficios médicos que se ofrezcan mediante los Sistemas Especializados, no cabe duda de que tales planes se ajustan a la definición de “plan de beneficios médicos” según 8901(6).

Perdónenme, pero de hecho sí hay una duda. La definición que cita la OPM especifica que sean planes colectivos, pero los planes de los sistemas especializados serán planes individuales, pues así es como se regularán por parte de los departamentos estatales de seguros y como serán tratados según el resto de disposiciones de Obamacare que se aplican a los planes de los sistemas especializados.

Además, el verdadero asunto no es la definición de “plan médico”, sino más bien la (falta de) autoridad legal del gobierno federal para pagar planes médicos mediante la FEHBP que la OPM no haya ni “contratado” ni “aprobado”.

La OPM concluye proponiendo enmendar el Código de Regulaciones Federales de la siguiente manera:

§ 890.201 Estándares mínimos para beneficios médicos

(d) Nada en este apartado limitará o impedirá que un plan de seguro médico adquirido mediante un Sistema Especializado, conforme a la sección 1312(d)(3)(D) de la Ley de Protección al Paciente y Cuidado de la Salud Asequible, Ley Pública 111-148, enmendada por la Ley de Atención Médica y Reconciliación Educativa, Ley Pública 111-152 (Ley de Cuidado de la Salud Asequible o la Ley), por un empleado de otro modo cubierto por el Título 5, Capítulo 8901(1)(B) y (C) sea considerado un “plan de beneficios médicos según este capítulo” a efectos del Titulo 5, Capítulos 8905(b) y 8906 del Código Federal de Estados Unidos.

¡Ahí está! Según la OPM, cualquier plan que se ajuste a la definición general de plan médico es ahora también “un plan de beneficios médicos según este capítulo”, por lo que el gobierno federal puede pagar el subsidio correspondiente al FEHBP de un empleado federal, incluso si no es un plan que la OPM haya “contratado” o “aprobado” dentro del FEHBP e incluso si es un plan “individual” y no uno “colectivo”, tal y como requiere la definición estatutaria de la que depende la OPM.

Ya era suficientemente perjudicial que el Congreso tuviera que aprobar la ley para averiguar qué contenía. Pero es que ahora la administración está haciendo caso omiso de esa misma ley cuando no le gusta lo que ésta estipula.

La versión en inglés de este artículo está en Heritage.org. 

Un senador de California lanza una ley gravemente discriminatoria contra los colegios católicos

Imagine que su familia pone un restaurante y que, paralelamente, el gobierno también decide poner el propio. Tenemos por tanto un restaurante privado (el suyo) y uno público (el del gobierno). Para atender el restaurante tanto usted como el gobierno contratan algunas personas. En una de esas, una de las personas contratadas para atender el restaurante privado, y también uno del restaurante del gobierno, abusan separadamente de algún cliente menor de edad.

Pasan muchos años y, por tanto, el crimen ya no puede ser denunciado a la justicia. Pero muchos años después a algunos políticos se les ocurre proveer de un periodo especial para que las víctimas puedan demandar y pedir resarcimientos económicos. Hasta ahí se podría estar de acuerdo.

 

Pero ahora suponga que la ley pediría los resarcimientos no al criminal (siguiendo el ejemplo, no al empleado que cometió el delito) sino a quienes le dieron trabajo. Esa no sería la injusticia solamente: en ese proyecto de ley los únicos que podrían ser demandados son los privados (el suyo) pero no los restaurantes públicos, los del gobierno.

Evidentemente, como la mayoría de los restaurantes privados no tendrían para cubrir gastos de indemnización por crímenes que ellos no cometieron, sino que cometieron sus empleados, se ven abocados al cierre. Los restaurantes del gobierno se quedan con el monopolio de la comida.

No es una fantasía: es una proposición de ley
Una ley en esa línea es la que se está impulsando en California. La propuesta de ley (SB [Senate Bill] 131) ha impulsado al arzobispo de Los Ángeles, José H. Gómez, a invitar a los católicos de California para que contacten a sus asambleístas y les pidan votar en contra de una medida impulsada por el senador Jim Beall de Campbell y que podría entrar en vigor en 2014.

La iniciativa de ley apunta contra la educación privada en general y la católica en particular. Los tres grandes errores que conlleva la propuesta de ley son: 1) no cumple con el deber de proteger a todas las víctimas de abuso sexual; 2) discrimina contra escuelas católicas y empleadores privados; y 3) pone en riesgo la labor de los servicios sociales y educativos de la Iglesia.

Graves irregularidades en el proyecto de ley
La web de la archidiócesis de Los Ángeles precisa algunas irregularidades de la propuesta de ley SB-131:

Suspende por un año el límite conocido como «ley de prescripción civil» con la intención de que las víctimas de abuso puedan entablar una demanda contra los empleadores de los criminales o supuestos criminales que abusaron de ellas. Se incluye incluso a los criminales o supuestos criminales que ya murieron, por tanto las instituciones privadas de hoy deben responder por actos de personas muertas.

La propuesta de ley no protege a todos los niños pues sólo posibilita que se demande a escuelas privadas y no a los que fueron violados en escuelas públicas u otros empleadores dependientes del gobierno. Esto es muy grave pues el 92% de los niños de California acuden a escuelas públicas, regentadas por el gobierno.

La propuesta va directamente contra colegios católicos y privados pues sólo y nada más contra ellos se pueden entablar las demandas. Estadística y socialmente, el fenómeno de los abusos es mayor fuera de la Iglesia. Y a los niños que estudian en escuelas del gobierno, ¿quién les protege o a quién pueden acudir?

La propuesta de ley no hace algo por incrementar sanciones contra los que cometieron los delitos: se va a la caza de los empleadores y no de los criminales.

Seiscientos casos en la escuela pública en 15 meses
Un ejemplo sobre este último punto: un artículo publicado en The Media Report («Media Highlights Church Opposition to California Bill Pushed By Contingency Lawyers Seeking to Bankrupt It, Ignores Exemption of Abuse-Ridden L.A. Schools», 24.07.2103) evidenciaba que en los últimos 15 meses al menos 600 maestros de escuelas públicas han sido despedidos o han tenido que renunciar por denuncias graves de conductas sexuales inapropiadas, tan sólo en el distrito de Los Ángeles. Y es ahí mismo donde el gobierno ha tenido que pagar 30 millones de dólares por denuncias de abusos en una sola escuela primaria pública. Pregunta: ¿por qué la iniciativa de ley sólo va contra instituciones privadas en general, y católicas en particular, cuando los abusos han ocurrido y siguen ocurriendo mayoritariamente en colegios públicos? CONTINUE LEYENDO

Romney finally talking!!!...Dia de la Constitución...Do palestinians want peace?...

Left-Wing Site Unearths Video of Romney... Talking Like a Conservative; UPDATE: Romney Responds

by John Nolte 17 Sep 2012 

**UPDATE: ROMNEY RESPONDS:

Via Romney Communications Director Gail Gitcho:

Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy. As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work. Mitt Romney’s plan creates 12 million new jobs in four years, grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs.

***
Brace yourselves; here comes another phony media rampage against Mitt Romney.
You can already see the media-future bubbling up on Twitter as the usual suspects in the mainstream media chuckle with glee over how they're going to use leaked videos from a closed-door fundraiser to destroy Their Precious One's opponent, Mitt Romney. Naturally, the videos are already posted on sites like "Mother Jones" -- and others that are specifically designed to create the memes the corrupt media latches onto in order to pound away at Romney and distract from Obama's disastrous policies in the Middle East and domestically.
So, just as the media did last week with Romney's perfectly valid criticism of Obama and the Cairo Embassy apology, it looks as though we're in for another week-long stink of media-manufactured outrage.
But over what, exactly ?
Over a conservative talking like a conservative and laying out facts.
When I saw these videos, my first thought was, "Gee, I wish Romney would talk this way on the campaign trail."
That sentiment is especially true for the video the corrupt media is going to pretend to be the most outraged over:

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: There are 47% of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. Alright, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe government has the responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing.

Well, gasp and egads.
 
FACT:  47% of tax-filers in this country pay no federal income tax.
That's not 47% of Americans, mind you; that's 47% of people who file federal income taxes.
That's not only a fact, it's a crime.

Why should anyone who qualifies to file a federal tax return get away with paying zero federal income taxes?

Why should 47% of tax-filers have no investment whatsoever in their government? READ MORE

NECESITA DINEO TEMPORAL? BANCO SOCIAL...$500 a 2 meses...Rápido

Hoy es el Día de la Constitución de Estados Unidos

Julia Shaw

Durante más de cien años, los progresistas han intentado persuadir a los americanos de que los tiempos han cambiado y, por lo tanto, nuestros documentos fundacionales (especialmente la Declaración de la Independencia y la Constitución) deben evolucionar para satisfacer las necesidades de una sociedad en 
desarrollo. Esta noción de una “constitución viva” es naturalmente predominante en los círculos intelectuales, pero también se ha filtrado en nuestros debates diarios y en la manera de pensar acerca de la Constitución.

Si los tiempos han cambiado tanto, entonces debemos preguntarnos (especialmente este 17 de septiembre, Día de la Constitución), ¿por qué vale la pena celebrar su día o siquiera preservarla?


Por un lado, celebramos y preservamos la Constitución porque organiza coherentemente la estructura de los asuntos gubernamentales y “es el acuerdo que formalmente constituye al pueblo americano”, como afirma el experto de Heritage Matthew Spalding. Pero la Constitución no es digna de elogio simplemente porque enumere instituciones particulares (como el Poder Ejecutivo, el Poder Judicial o los estados).

Para comprender la importancia de la Constitución y su valor, podemos recurrir a su gran defensor, Abraham Lincoln. Para Lincoln, el objetivo de la Constitución no era que la ensalzaran. Al reflexionar sobre las enseñanzas de Proverbios 25:11 que dice: “Como manzana de oro con figuras de plata es la palabra dicha como conviene”, Lincoln describe los principios americanos establecidos en la Declaración de la Independencia como la manzana de oro, mientras que “Estados Unidos y la Constitución, son las figuras de plata, posteriormente enmarcadas a su alrededor”. Aunque la figura de plata es efectivamente hermosa y buena, “la figura fue hecha para la manzana y no la manzana para la figura”. De este modo, lo que hace que la Constitución sea digna de preservarse son los imperecederos principios de la Declaración de la Independencia que la Constitución garantiza.

Con toda seguridad, los hábitos de la vida cotidiana americana han cambiado desde 1787. Pero una economía global, los avances tecnológicos y las mujeres en la población activa no convierten la Declaración de la Independencia en algo cuestionable ni hace falta una nueva Constitución. A pesar del actual ataque a la Constitución, los americanos no dejan de recurrir a este venerable documento en busca de guía. Después de todo, según las palabras de Calvin Coolidge, existe un carácter definitivo en los principios de Estados Unidos:

“Si todos los hombres son creados iguales, eso es definitivo. Si están dotados con derechos inalienables, eso es definitivo. Si los gobiernos derivan sus justos poderes del consentimiento de los gobernados, eso es definitivo. No hay avance, no hay progreso que se pueda hacer más allá de estas propuestas. Si alguien desea negar esa verdad o su sensatez, la única dirección en la cual puede proceder históricamente no es hacia delante sino hacia atrás, hasta la época en la cual no había igualdad, ni derechos individuales, ni gobierno del pueblo”.

Este Día de la Constitución, recordemos y conmemoremos los principios que han hecho de este documento, la Constitución más exitosa que se haya escrito en la historia.



INVEST UP TO $5,000 @ 6 Ms...10% RETURN GUARANTEED! BANCO SOCIAL

Video: Republican Mitt Romney lambastes 2-state solution

By JPOST.COM STAFF

US Republican presidential candidate filmed at fundraising dinner saying Palestinians "have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace," adding Iran would use nuclear capability to blackmail US.

 

Photo: Jason Reed / Reuters

 

US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney questioned the feasibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, according to video footage published Tuesday by US magazine Mother Jones.

"I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard," Romney said at a $50,000-per-plate fundraising dinner on May 17. "One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish."

Romney then launched into a hypothetical scenario in which Israelis allow the Palestinians to establish a state in the West Bank but are then forced to contend with unsolvable security and border issues.
It is "maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank," he said, repeating an oft-cited Israeli security concern alleging that an opposing Arab army in the West Bank could cut Israel in half horizontally in a matter of minutes. "And now how about the airport?" he asked.

Romney said that the Palestinians would demand full control over its own borders, and suggested they could open access to military armaments. "And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel."

Concluding that the Palestinians remain "committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel," the US presidential candidate endorsed a strategy of maintaining the status quo. "You move things along the best way you can," he said. "You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem."

Turning to Iran, Romney cautioned on the danger of allowing the Islamic Republic to obtain nuclear weapons capability. Using another hypothetical scenario, Romney imagined Iran giving Hezbollah "a little fissile material," ordering the proxy to take it to Chicago, and then blackmailing the US over foreign policy issues. "We really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon," he said.

Ahead of elections in November, US President Barack Obama has been repeatedly attacked by his Republican challenger for "throwing Israel under the bus," both vis-à-vis the Palestinians and Iran. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been actively pressing the US president to "set red lines," which Obama rejects, and which is threatening to become a wedge issue in US politics. Netanyahu recently took his position to the US airwaves, giving interview with CNN and NBC calling for a US guarantee against Iran.

Is Obama a Dictator?

It’s Official: Presidency Now a Dictatorship

Kurt Nimmo
June 15, 2012
Obama’s latest outrageous violation of the laws of the United States demonstrate that the nation has arrived at its destination: a dictatorship lorded over by an imperial ruler.
On Friday, Obama instructed the government to ignore an influx of illegal aliens streaming over the border. The move was implemented to sway Latino voters into the Obama camp in preparation for the upcoming election against fellow establishment candidate Mitt Romney.
Obama’s violations of law and the Constitution make his predecessor look like a piker by way of comparison. Since he was voted into office by deluded citizens who believed he would pay for their rent and food, Obama has enacted by fiat or worked with Congress to pass a number of bills that have increased the power of the executive and the unconstitutional authority of the federal government.
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
This monstrous statute allows the government to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. The NDAA gives the government the authority to designate American citizens as terrorists and indefinitely detain them without recourse to courts or due process of law and without specific charge.
“Permit me to state the obvious,” writes Sheldon Richman. “The government shouldn’t be allowed to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. It shouldn’t be necessary to say this nearly 800 years after Magna Carta was signed and over 200 years after the Fifth Amendment was ratified.”
Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta states that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” The concept of due process first appeared in English common law in 1354 and inspired the Fifth Amendment more than 400 years later.
The time honored principle that the state must try citizens in a court of law is now dead – and with surprisingly little resistance from our supposed representatives.
Unconstitutional wars
Not only did Obama continue and amplify Bush’s unconstitutional, illegal and immoral wars against nations that did not present a danger to the United States, he also initiated an overt war of his own in Libya (under NATO cover). He did not go to Congress and seek a declaration as required under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Instead, he used the fig leaf of the United Nations to cover his illegal action.
In May, the Secretary of War, Leon Panetta, said Obama will “seek international permission” to launch new wars.” He declared the “commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country” without consulting the American people.
In March, Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to prevent Obama from starting another war without authorization from Congress. It has since languished in committee.
Obamacare
Obama’s health care mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance from large monopolistic corporations represents the height of his arrogance and contempt for the American people and the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution is known as the Commerce Clause. It states that “Congress shall have the power… to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes.” It does not permit the government to force you to buy insurance from a government preferred and protected monopoly.
In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote that the clause spells out that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined,” while those left to the states “are numerous and indefinite,” although you wouldn’t know that if you listen to Democrats and far too many of their Republican colleagues.
The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to facilitate commerce between the states and prevent tariffs, quotas and taxes. It was not designed to help a lumbering and dictatorial federal government force “mandates” on the people at gunpoint.



Our supposed representatives are wholly ignorant of the Constitution and its unmistakable principles of limited government intervention. Rep. Nancy Pelosi made this clear when she was asked if the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate.
“Are you serious?” she responded, demonstrating her complete ignorance of the Constitution.
Following legal challenges to the law and its consideration before the highest court, Obama threatened to cut off Medicare payments if the Supreme Court does not rule in his favor.
Treaties
Obama has shown his contempt for the law, Congress, and the people by negotiating globalist treaties.
He would subvert the American judicial process by implementing the International Criminal Court. It will ultimately be used against American citizens. Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame University Law School has stated that we will be confronted by “a monster” that effectively “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.”
The Law of the Sea Treaty will create another international bureaucracy that will limit the sovereignty of the United States and impose globalist regulations. “The autonomy of the United States is threatened if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body that is not accountable to the American people,” writes Julie Borowski. “The U.N. is openly hostile to our national sovereignty and republican form of government. The ratification of LOST [Law of the Sea Treaty] would open up a Pandora’s Box of problems. It would impose global taxes and regulations that cripple economic growth while exposing ourselves to high-stakes environmental lawsuits”
The Small Arms Treaty would circumvent the Second Amendment, the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. If ratified, it will impose even tougher licensing requirements, confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms, ban semiautomatic weapons, create an international gun registry, and override our cherished national sovereignty.
Startling details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership were revealed earlier this week in a leaked document. This treaty would allow transnational corporations to skirt American banking, investment, environmental and labor laws. The laws would still apply to corporations based in the United States, however. “The leaked document shows that in all of the major respects, this is exactly the same template that was used in NAFTA and other agreements that President Obama campaigned against,” Todd Tucker, the research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, told Slate.
Wayuu Purse
Flurry of Executive Orders
Although he lied and said he would not issue executive orders, Obama has signed a large number of them:
Council of Governors. “An Obama executive order that creates a council of state governors who will work with the feds to expand military involvement in domestic security, together with PDD 51, a Bush era executive order that gives the President dictatorial power in times of national emergency, eliminate the last roadblocks to declaring martial law in the United States,” Paul Joseph Watson summarized in January of 2010.
National Defense Resources Preparedness: This EO, signed in March of 2012, renews and updates Obama’s authority to seize control of all civil energy supplies, including oil and natural gas, and control and restrict all civil transportation. It essentially reaffirms a large number of FEMA-related executive orders issued since the national security state was installed in 1947 and is another element in an intricate structure that will enable martial law at the president’s discretion.
Less significant – although equally unconstitutional – executive orders include creating a council on bioethics, implementing a policy on space exploration, creating a mathematics advisory panel, and numerous other issues that should be addressed by Congress.
Advanced Effort to Kill the Constitution
From the Department of Justice’s high-handed attempt to prevent Arizona from protecting its borders to restrictive EPA rules that impose unreasonably burdensome financial costs on the states, Obama’s federal government has turned into a tyrannical leviathan dictating policy and law at gunpoint.
Since the reign of Bush, the federal government has shifted into high gear the effort to degrade and dilute the separation of powers. Obama was installed precisely to oversee the further destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and empower the imperial presidency.
His latest move to further weaken the immigration laws of the United States is simply more evidence that the federal government will continue to run roughshod over the Constitution and the natural rights of the American people, an incremental plan implemented by the elite that is now approaching its zenith.

Obama Nazi death camp gaffe 'hurt all Poles': PM

• 
  US President Barack Obama

Poland's prime minister said Wednesday that remarks by President Barack Obama erroneously identifying a Nazi death camp as Polish had hurt all Poles and he expected more from the US than "regret".

"I am convinced that our American friends can today allow themselves a stronger reaction than a simple expression of regret from the White House spokesman -- a reaction more inclined to eliminate once and for all these kinds of errors," Donald Tusk told reporters in Warsaw.

Obama on Tuesday mistakenly called a Nazi facility used to process Jews for execution as a "Polish death camp." The White House later said the president "misspoke" and expressed "regret".

The linguistic faux pas overshadowed his posthumous award of America's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to Jan Karski, a former Polish anti-Nazi underground officer who provided the Allied powers with early eyewitness accounts of the Germany's Holocaust against Jews.

Obama's words had "hurt all Poles," Tusk said Wednesday.

"Today this is a problem for the reputation of the United States. This can be an opportunity for the US administration and for President Obama to support Poland in its activity for historic truth," Tusk added.

The Polish government keenly watches the global media for descriptions of former concentration camps as "Polish" because it says the term -- even if used simply as a geographical indicator -- can give the impression that Poland bore responsibility for Nazi Germany's World War II genocide.

Although located in Poland, Nazi Germany's most notorious World War II death camp -- Auschwitz -- was set up and run entirely by German dictator Adolf Hitler's occupying forces from 1940 to 1945.

While most of the camp's 1.1 million victims were Jews deported from other German-occupied nations, the Nazis sent at least 300,000 Polish Jews there.

Polish Jews represented around half the six million killed in the Holocaust.

Until 1942, the camp was primarily a prison and killing centre for non-Jewish Poles such as resistance members. An estimated 75,000 died there, out of around 2.6 million non-Jewish Poles who perished under the Nazi German occupation of their country. Taken from

Want to to make the Most out of Colombia's Free trade agreement?

Iran to build new nuclear plant by early 2014: TV

 

---

Iran is to build a new nuclear power plant, alongside its sole existing one in the southern city of Bushehr, by early 2014, state television reported on Sunday, quoting the head of the country's Atomic Energy Organisation.

"Iran will build a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Bushehr next year," the television quoted Fereydoon Abbasi Davani as saying. He was referring to the Iranian calendar year running from March 2013 to March 2014.

The current Bushehr nuclear plant was started by German engineers in the 1970s, before Iran's Islamic revolution, and was completed by Russia, which continues to help keeping it running and provides fuel for it.

In addition, Iran has a research reactor operating in Tehran that is used to make medical isotopes for patients with cancer and other illnesses.

A new Bushehr plant would boost electricity production in Iran, which has some of the world's biggest reserves.

State television made its announcement in the wake of talks in Baghdad on Wednesday and Thursday between Iran and world powers that focused on Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.

Those talks almost collapsed because of the very different positions held by the two sides, but agreement was finally reached to hold another round in Moscow on June 18-19.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful and aimed at producing energy and medical isotopes.

The world powers -- the Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- suspect the programme could include work towards developing a nuclear weapons capability, and they have backed UN Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to curb its activities. From Breitbart

Constitución viviente: Los progresistas atrapados en su propia trampa

Rich Tucker



Sabemos que los “progresistas” están a favor de lo que ellos llaman “constituciones vivientes”, documentos de gobierno que se cambian fácilmente para adaptarse a los cambiantes gustos de los votantes. A veces se apoyan en los jueces para “dar vida” a la Constitución, como hizo la Corte Suprema en 1965 en el famoso caso Griswold v. Connecticut.
Sin embargo, algunos también parecen estar deseando constituciones muertas. El jueves, un entrevistador, Jeremy Hobson, de la radio pública nacional NPR tuvo una idea interesante: “Tengo que decir que cuando hablo con amigos de todo el país, miran este     sistema en California y que dicen: bueno, ¿ simplemente por qué no botan la Constitución [estatal] que exige que los votantes aprueben todo lo que hacen?”. Esa fue la pregunta de Hobson para el gobernador de California,  Jerry Brown (D).

Pero Brown pareció darse cuenta de que no le queda de otra que quedarse con el documento “perfeccionado” por sus antecesores progresistas.
“¿Por qué no botamos esta constitución y ya?”, respondió Brown. “Se ha hecho ya en varios países y se llama golpe de estado. Mire Ud., esto es una democracia, se le pueden hallar fallos pero en comparación con la parálisis en Washington, por lo menos tenemos un árbitro de última instancia, y es el pueblo mismo”.
Brown y sus colegas progresistas están viéndose obstaculizados por el sistema que ellos mismos han diseñado. Será interesante ver en qué acaba todo esto.

Que mas quisieran los Democratas!!!