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

miércoles, 6 de enero de 2016

Democrats don't like Trump's voter...but they want their vote!!! Obama y el control de armas...Oil to provide for 80% of Energy pass 2040!

Why Are Democrats Concerned About White People All of a Sudden?

Democrats Look Down on Trump Supporters, but Want Their Vote


BY NAPP NAZWORTH , CP POLITICAL ANALYST

January 5, 2016|1:15 pm

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greets supporters and signs autographs after a campaign stop in Spencer, Iowa December 5, 2015.
"These Trump supporters are horrible; how do we get their vote?" is the contradictory message heard from various Democratic corners these days.
While Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has gained support with appeals to some of the worst aspects of the American zeitgeist, some liberals now recognize that his supporters are a demographic group that the Democrats should listen to.
The most detailed study yet of Trump supporters was reported by Nate Cohn Thursday for The New York Times. Using a massive sample of 11,000 potential Republican primary voters, Civis Analytics, a Democratic firm, found that Trump's core supporters are likely registered Democrats who tend to vote Republican in presidential races.
In addition to being registered Democrats who self-identify as Republican, Trump's supporters are "less affluent, less educated and less likely to turn out to vote." These supporters tend to be concentrated along a broad swath of the country from Louisiana, through the Appalachians, to upstate New York. His three best states are West Virginia, New York and North Carolina, in that order. (The NYT report has a convenient heat map.)
The report also found that Trump's support tends to overlap with another report showing areas with the most racially charged Internet searches (an indicator of racism). Plus, those areas overlap well with where Hillary Clinton did best when she ran against Barack Obama for the Democratic Party nomination in 2008, Cohn pointed out.
Data aggregated at the congressional district level cannot determine causation at the individual level — you cannot say that Trump's supporters are racist based upon this information, in other words. But, it does indicate the possablity that Trump's support comes from those easily mobilized by bigotry.
One of the most important findings in political science since the early 1990s is that most voters views on most issues are characterized by ambivalence. They have many competing views in their heads when deciding where they stand on an issue. Which view surfaces, becomes their "top of the head" response, can be influenced by recent conversations or events in the news.
When Trump uses messaging with, for instance, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican overtones, he helps to surface those latent bigotries. As a communicator, Trump is one of the most skilled modern politicians at doing this.
A caveat: Trump's support does not only come from these voters. If that were the case he would not be leading by such a wide margin. The report points out that Trump is leading among all the major demographic groups, including registered Republicans. He even leads among Latino Republicans, though by a thin margin.
What the report found, however, is his strongest support comes from the blue collar, mostly white, mostly Democrat, families. For instance, his support among registered Republicans is 29 percent, but among registered Democrats likely to vote in the Republican primary, it's 43 percent.
On a measure of likelihood of voting in the primary, Trump does best among those least likely to vote (40 percent), and worst among those most likely to vote (29 percent).
Unlike the other candidates, the challenge for Trump's campaign is first, in the states that do not allow registered Democrats to vote in the Republican primary or only allow registered Republicans to vote in the Republican primary, to switch their party affiliation; and second, to get them to the polls on election day. (Some states require voters to register party affiliation when they register to vote while others do not.)
As the Trump campaign figures out the challenges of its core supporters, on the other side of the political divide some Democrats are wondering how they lost these voters, and how they might get them back.
Obama described his understanding of the Trump phenomenon a couple of weeks ago in an interview for NPR.
"[…] particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck," he said.
"You combine those things, and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear — some of it justified, but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That's what he's exploiting during the course of his campaign."
Obama's analysis is correct. Trump's main support comes from those who are angry and frustrated, and rightly so. They've seen others gain while their economic situation has remained stagnant or worsened.
David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, described Trump supporters for The Atlantic's January cover story:
"The angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an accusation rather than a description.
"You can measure their pessimism in polls that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their children. On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group, in middle age.
"White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every institution in American society: not only government, but corporations, unions, even the political party they typically vote for — the Republican Party of Romney, Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and sellouts. They are pissed off. And when Donald Trump came along, they were the people who told the pollsters, 'That's my guy.'"
They aren't necessarily superconservative. They often don't think in ideological terms at all. But they do strongly feel that life in this country used to be better for people like them — and they want that older country back."
In addition to Obama's remarks, there have been several articles about working-class white people from liberal and left-of-center sources.
In a Nov. 29, 2015, op-ed for The Washington Post, Democrat E.J. Dionne recommends empathy for Trump supporters.
A couple of weeks later, political scientist William Galston, Dionne's colleague at Brookings Institution, authored a similar op-ed for The Wall Street Journal.
Don't turn away from Trump voters, Galston advized his fellow Democrats. (He once worked for the Bill Clinton administration.) Instead, consider how to win those voters.
image: http://graphic.christianpost.com/images/article/icn_veiwArticle.gif
 View article on single page
Pages: 12
Contact: napp.nazworth@christianpost.com@NappNazworth (Twitter)

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/democrats-white-people-trump-vote-154076/#RYWxqhETPULMcRIf.99


 Wayuu Bags


El decreto de Obama sobre el control de armas

Armas ATFFrustrado por su incapacidad para doblegar la voluntad del Congreso a la suya propia, el presidente Barack Obama ha vuelto a agarrar su lapicero y teléfono de confianza y emitió hoy una serie de “decretos presidenciales” sobre el control de armas.
Si bien puede haber un impacto presupuestario, varias de las propuestas del presidente, pero no todas, no son controvertidas desde un punto de vista legal, a pesar de que pueden ser objeto de controversia desde el punto de vista político o de normativa pública.

Lo que anunció el presidente

El presidente está pidiendo al Congreso que ponga fondos para, entre otras cosas, añadir 200 nuevos agentes e investigadores a la Oficina de Alcohol, Tabaco, Armas de Fuego y Explosivos (ATF) para hacer cumplir las leyes existentes de armas y para inyectar $500 millones y así aumentar el acceso a programas de salud mental.
Anunció que el FBI va a contratar a 230 examinadores y personal de apoyo para acelerar el proceso de verificación de antecedentes utilizando el Sistema Nacional Instantáneo de Antecedentes Penales (NICS) y ha ordenado al FBI para que colabore con el Servicio Digital de Estados Unidos para la modernización del sistema NICS.
Anunció que, bajo sus órdenes, la procuradora general Loretta Lynch había convocado una reunión con los procuradores de todo el país para instruirlos (como si no supieran ya eso) de que deberán seguir teniendo como objetivo los “peores de los peores” crímenes con armas y continuar con la lucha contra la violencia armada en sus comunidades.
Lynch también está preparando un memorando animándolos a renovar sus iniciativas contra la violencia doméstica. El presidente también ha dado instrucciones a Lynch para que escriba una carta a los estados subrayando la importancia de recibir registros completos de antecedentes penales, así como información sobre personas inhabilitadas a poseer armas de fuego por haber estado “en una institución mental” o “calificado con defecto mental” o haber sido condenado por un delito menor de violencia doméstica.
También ha ordenado a los departamentos de Defensa, Seguridad Interior y Justicia a que hagan o patrocinen investigaciones en tecnología de seguridad de armas y que promuevan el uso y adquisición de tecnología para armas inteligentes.
Ninguna de estas propuestas son jurídicamente problemáticas, ya que cualquier presidente es libre de dar orientación a las agencias federales y pedirle al Congreso el dinero apropiado para financiar sus prioridades. De hecho, los defensores de los derechos pro armas desde hace mucho han instado al presidente a que actualice y mejore el sistema NICS, que fue lo que estuvo detrás de la enmienda de la ley para mejorar el sistema NICS en 2008.

¿Qué es objeto de impugnación legal?

Algunas de las medidas anunciadas por el presidente podrán, sin embargo, ser objeto de impugnación jurídica a medida que los detalles vayan surgiendo en los próximos días. No es ningún secreto que el presidente desea cerrar el vacío legal de la venta en ferias de armas ampliando el número de vendedores a pequeña escala que deberán registrarse (y tener licencia) como distribuidores federales de armas de fuego, lo que luego les obligará a llevar a cabo verificaciones de antecedentes cada vez que vendan un arma.
La ley federal establece que alguien “involucrado en la industria” de la venta de armas de fuego cuando y cada vez “una persona dedique tiempo, atención y trabajo en la venta de armas de fuego como curso regular de actividad comercial o empresarial con el objetivo principal de obtener medios de vida o con fines de lucro a través de la compra repetitiva y reventa de armas de fuego, pero este término no incluirá a una persona que haga ocasionales ventas, intercambios o compras de armas de fuego para la mejora de una colección personal o pasatiempo, o que venda toda o parte de su colección personal de armas de fuego…”.

El papel de la ATF

El presidente anunció que la ATF ha “aclarado” que una persona “involucrada en la industria” de la venta de armas de fuego sin importar el lugar en el que las transacciones de armas de fuego se lleven a cabo e incluso unas pocas transacciones pueden desencadenar la exigencia de la licencia “cuando se combine con otras pruebas “suficientes para demostrar que alguien se dedica a ese negocio.
Aunque queda por ver qué acciones de cumplimiento buscará la ATF, esto no es realmente algo nuevo, ya que varios tribunales han sostenido que lo que importa es lo que uno está haciendo, no dónde lo está haciendo, y a los distribuidores de armas de fuego con licencia federal se les ha exigido desde hace mucho que lleven a cabo verificaciones de antecedentes penales si venden armas en sus tiendas o en ferias de armas.
Las cortes de justicia también han sostenido que otros factores, como considerarse comerciante de armas de fuego o participar en repetidas transacciones con fines de lucro, deben tenerse en cuenta a la hora de determinar la situación.
Muy significativo es que nada en esta “aclaración” cambia las definiciones contenidas en la legislación vigente y cualquier intento unilateral por parte de esta (o cualquier) administración de reescribir esas definiciones para reclasificar las personas que sólo se dedican a “ventas ocasionales” para que pasen a ser comerciantes de armas sujetos a requisitos de licencia serían impugnadas sin duda alguna en las cortes y probablemente la administración fracasará en su intento.
Si el presidente quiere reescribir la ley, tiene que trabajar con el Congreso para hacerlo.

¿Quién reúne los requisitos como enfermo mental?

Otro tema potencialmente preocupante es el anuncio del presidente de que la Administración del Seguro Social (SSA) comenzará el proceso de reglamentación para asegurar que los “registros apropiados” sean enviados al sistema NICS sobre  no sólo de personas calificadas por un juez como enfermos mentales o legalmente incompetentes, sino también a las personas “con un problema de salud mental documentado, que reciben beneficios por discapacidad y son incapaces de gestionar esos beneficios debido a su deterioro mental”.
Si un veterano está recibiendo tratamiento TEPT (Trastorno de estrés postraumático) o alguien tiene recetados antidepresivos o medicamentos contra la ansiedad por un psiquiatra, ¿será que esa persona ahora tiene “un problema de salud documentado”?
Si un jubilado recibe prestaciones de la seguridad social a través de un “representante del beneficiario”, ¿será que a esa persona ahora se le considerará como que “no puede gestionar esos beneficios” por alguna “deficiencia mental”?
¿Puede un burócrata del gobierno quitarle un derecho constitucional basado en estas bases sin una audiencia judicial?
¿Puede un burócrata del gobierno quitarle un derecho constitucional basado en estos fundamentos sin una audiencia judicial? Eso aún está por verse.

Los ciudadanos respetuosos de la ley

Mientras que la violencia armada es un legítimo asunto de preocupación pública, es importante recordar que, si bien la posesión de armas en este país ha aumentado de forma espectacular en los últimos años, las muertes relacionadas con armas de fuego (excepto el suicidio) han disminuido.
Muchos ciudadanos respetuosos de la ley optan por ejercer sus derechos de la Segunda Enmienda para protegerse a sí mismos y a sus familias, y reconocen que puede llegar un momento en el que se enfrenten a un asaltante armado y los segundos cuentan aunque la policía esté sólo a pocos minutos.
No se les debe impedir esa defensa debido a políticas mal concebidas y posiblemente ilegales aplicadas por decreto presidencial.

John G. Malcolm

Despite Green Energy Push, API Chief Says Oil and Gas Will Provide 80% of U.S. Energy Needs Through 2040


By Penny Starr | January 5, 2016 | 9:40 PM EST
Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the trade association American Petroleum Institute, spoke about his organization's 2016 State of American Energy report in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 5, 2016. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – American Petroleum Institute president and CEO Jack Gerard said Tuesday that federal government data show the United States will continue to rely on fossil fuels as its main source of energy for decades to come, despite efforts by environmentalists to work toward a goal of banning them.
CNSNews.com asked Gerard about the United Nations climate change conference in Paris last month at which scientists and environmentalists expressed the belief that addressing climate change would require an eventual ban on all fossil fuels.
“The experts will tell you that by 2040, 80 percent of the energy resource we’ll rely on in the United States will continue to be fossil fuels,” he said.
Gerard was speaking at a press conference  after addressing the oil and gas trade association’s annual State of American Energy event in Washington, D.C.
According to the federal Energy Information Administration, although renewable and nuclear are the fast-growing energy sources – each increasing by 2.5 percent a year – “fossil fuels continue to supply nearly 80% of world energy use through 2040.”
In his prepared remarks, Gerard said the U.S. was the world’s leader in gas and oil production while also leading the world in carbon reductions – thanks, in part, to increased production of fossil fuels, specifically liquefied natural gas (LNG).
“The science today shows us that natural gas is a key opportunity to further improve the environment,” he said. “I would suggest one of the things we should look at is how do we expedite and move LNG export opportunities in the United States.”
“Fortunately, we know how to bring about America’s brighter energy future, which means lower cost for American consumers, a cleaner environment and American energy leadership, because it is today’s reality,” Gerard said.
“We call it the U.S. model.”
“Simultaneously, the United States is leading the world in energy production, we have one of the strongest western economies, and are leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions – a trifecta of success unmatched by any other nation,” Gerard said.
Gerard told CNSNews.com at the press conference that the U.S. should “build on the success” in these areas.
“The reality is, we are leading the world and how did we get there?” Gerard said. “That’s the simple point we’re trying to make, as you look and you build on the success we have today, we believe we can deal with the challenge of carbon. But we can also do it in other ways, other than those driven purely by political ideology.”

domingo, 30 de junio de 2013

Then we ask: why GOD?...Peligra el estado Laico si hablamos de nuestra fe?....Democrats and Infanticide!

DOJ Defunds Youth Programs that Reference God



The Department of Justice has summarily removed federal funding from two Louisiana youth programs because a local official refused to sign a pledge stating he would require the programs to ban mentions of God.

Julian Whittington, the sheriff of Bossier Parish, LA, told Fox News that Obama's Justice Office of Civil Rights de-funded the Young Marines chapter and another youth program over mentions of religion. In the case of the Young Marine program, chartered in 1965, the funding was cut off because the group features an oath that mentions "God." In the other case, it was because a program for at-risk youth featured a voluntary, student-led prayer session as one of its activities.
Sheriff Whittington says that the DOJ withdrew a combined $30,000 from the programs because the groups refused to remove God from their activities. The sheriff said this was evidence of the government's "aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms."
Whittington told Fox, "We were informed that these are unacceptable, inherently religious activities and the Department of Justice would not be able to fund the programs if it continued. They wanted a letter from me stating that I would no longer have voluntary prayer and I would also have to remove ‘God’ from the Young Marine’s oath."
The oath from the Young Marine organization reads:
From this day forward, I sincerely promise, I will set an example for all other youth to follow and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon God, my Country and its flag, my parents, myself or the Young Marines. These I will honor and respect in a manner that will reflect credit upon them and myself. Semper Fidelis
Both the U.S. Army enlistment oath and its commissioning oath end with "so help me God."
As to the at-risk youth program, Whittington said,"We're not promoting any specific religion, this is just voluntary prayer, mention of God, how offensive and bad can that be?"
In response to the DOJ’s message insisting that he sign the anti-God pledge, Sheriff Whittington sent a letter of his own to LA Governor Bobby Jindal.
"As a Christian, Sheriff and American citizen, I am writing to express my frustration and concern over the persistent aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms which have been imposed upon the law enforcement grant programs, specifically related to the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement,” wrote the Sheriff.
In cutting off the funding, the DOJ claimed it was a violation of Church and State rules for the government to fund any group that mentions God.
Fox's Todd Starnes says that, "Both youth programs have been hailed as a successful way to reach at-risk young people. Since 2002 more than 1,000 young people have graduated from the program, directed by a Bossier Parish deputy who is a former U.S. Marine."
Like Sheriff Whittington, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) was troubled by the DOJ's actions.
"There is a very wide effort coming out of the administration that seeks to stamp out freedom of expressions – particularly religion and especially freedom of Christian expression," Fleming said. "They are willing to throw the youth overboard and remove the funding just in the name of making this an atheist, agnostic, secular organization."
"They (DOJ) don’t want anything to have any sort of religious support – even down to prayer," Fleming said. "It’s sad and it’s inconsistent with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution."
Sheriff Whittington is not taking this lying down. "When something is not right and you know it’s not right and you keep bowing down, nothing is ever going to change," he said.


¿Peligra el Estado laico?

Cuando las autoridades expresan su fe en los actos públicos

San Cristóbal de las Casas, (Zenit.org) Felipe Arizmendi Esquivel

SITUACIONES

Por el hecho de que algunas autoridades municipales y estatales, católicas y protestantes, han expresado en actos públicos su fe cristiana, confiando su territorio al reinado de Jesucristo, de inmediato han surgido voces de alerta, diciendo que se violaron las leyes, que estos son intentos de dar marcha atrás a la laicidad oficial, que son muestras de incapacidad de esas autoridades para gobernar y que se les debiera hacer un juicio político para destituirles. No les pareció bien que el Presidente de la República se haya hecho presente al inicio del ministerio del Papa Francisco, porque alegan que eso es no respetar el carácter laico del Estado.
Estamos en fin de cursos en las escuelas, privadas y públicas. Muchos nos solicitan una Misa de acción de gracias, sobre todo quienes terminan una etapa, desde kínder hasta universidad. La piden los alumnos, los mismos maestros o los padres de familia. ¿Esto es contrario al laicismo de artículo tercero constitucional, en que se afirma que la educación pública debe ser laica?

En varias comunidades, no sólo indígenas, cuando una autoridad civil va a iniciar su cargo, es costumbre que participe en una celebración religiosa en forma oficial, no privada. En otros países, juramentan sobre la Biblia, van a un Te Deum en las fiestas nacionales, o manifiestan su fe religiosa, y nadie se extraña por ello.

ILUMINACION

¿Qué pasa en nuestro país? Las leyes sobre la materia son bastante restrictivas. Dice la Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público: “Las autoridades federales, estatales y municipales no podrán asistir con carácter oficial a ningún acto religioso de culto público, ni a actividad que tenga motivos o propósitos similares” (Art. 25). Y su respectivo Reglamento: “Se exceptúa de lo previsto en el párrafo anterior, al servidor público que asista a título personal a los actos religiosos de culto público o actividades que tengan motivos o propósitos similares. En dichos actos o actividades, el servidor público en ningún momento podrá ostentarse o hacer manifiesto su carácter oficial, ni actuar en el ejercicio de las atribuciones que legalmente le corresponden. En caso de incumplimiento a lo dispuesto en este artículo, el servidor público de que se trata, será sujeto de las responsabilidades y sanciones previstas en las leyes aplicables” (Art. 28).

Se acaba de aprobar, después de varias inexplicables resistencias, esta reforma al artículo 24 de nuestra Constitución: “Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad de convicciones éticas, de conciencia y de religión, y a tener o adoptar, en su caso, la de su agrado. Esta libertad incluye el derecho de participar, individual o colectivamente, tanto en público como en privado, en las ceremonias, devociones o actos del culto respectivo, siempre que no constituyan un delito o falta penados por la ley. Nadie podrá utilizar los actos públicos de expresión de esta libertad con fines políticos, de proselitismo o de propaganda política”.

Esto no es nuevo, sino apenas la aplicación de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, firmada en 1948, que en su artículo 18 establece: “Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad de pensamiento, de conciencia y de religión; este derecho incluye la libertad de cambiar de religión o de creencia, así como la libertad de manifestar su religión o su creencia, individual y colectivamente, tanto en público como en privado, por la enseñanza, la práctica, el culto y la observancia”.

En esta Declaración de la ONU, ratificada por nuestro país, no se hace restricción alguna para que las autoridades civiles manifiesten su propia fe, en público y en privado.

COMPROMISOS

Ya es tiempo de poner nuestras leyes más acordes con los tratados internacionales, y no seguir haciendo una dicotomía entre la vida pública y la privada en las autoridades. Esa distinción es una ficción legal; en la práctica, no es posible separarlas. Lo que no debe permitirse es usar la religión con fines partidistas, pues los partidos parten y dividen a los pueblos; la Iglesia está para unir a los que están partidos y divididos.


Cruz: Democrats Don't Care About Infanticide



Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) denounced Democrats for not caring about infanticide in a speech to the National Right to Life convention on Friday in Texas. 

According to LifeNews, Cruz said Senate Democrats do not think abortionists who kill born-alive babies like Kermit Gosnell and Douglas Kerpen, a late-term abortion doctor in Houston, are doing anything wrong.
Cruz said he was proud to support a bill in the Senate that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, which did not make it to the floor, and compared his fight in the Senate to the fight to ban such abortions in Texas, which Democrats, led by State Senator Wendy Davis filibustered last week. Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry has called another special session on Monday in order to get the bill passed.

“Democrats stood together embracing the policy of abortion no matter what the consequences,” Cruz said, according to LifeNews. “When Austin Democrats filibustered, they were filibustering to protect late-term abortions.”
He blasted Senate Democrats for defending abortions up until birth and not taking Gosnell's clinic--and others like it--seriously.
He said Senate Democrats wanted a resolution that condemned unsanitary health clinics," but were only "fine with any resolution as long as it didn’t mention abortion. A clinic passing on a disease in their minds is morally equivalent to Gosnell killing babies outside their mothers womb.”
Cruz said he was also proud that Texas "led the states" while he was Solicitor General on banning partial-birth abortions and "applauded the courts for defending Texas’ right to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business."

Cruz reportedly also spoke about forced abortions in China and "lamented that pro-abortion groups don’t speak up more against the grisly practice that has killed millions of babies in China." He also "bashed President Barack Obama for repeatedly voting against the Born Alive bill in Illinois, which would stop infanticides."
He then "condemned news outlets that ignored Gosnell" and thanked pro-life advocates for not only pressuring the mainstream media to cover the Gosnell trial but to fight for pro-life causes "despite the ridicule of the mainstream media."
“Without life there is no liberty, there is no pursuit of happiness. The ability to take life is the ultimate power and the ultimate deprivation of our God-given rights," Cruz said. “I have been honored to have the opportunity to defend life.”

lunes, 20 de agosto de 2012

Democrats in Desperation! Why?

The Distraction Defense: Democrats, Media Desperate to Change the Subject


20 Aug 2012
 

The surest sign that Democrats know they are in trouble after Paul Ryan's nomination to the Republican presidential ticket behind Mitt Romney is the desperation with which they are trying, desperately, to steer the conversation away from the economy, entitlements, and the Constitution--with the help of the media, of course. This is the substantive debate that President Barack Obama always said he was ready for, and which the media always calls for in high-minded tones, but once it is here they are suddenly trying to change the conversation.

The latest distraction is a side show in the Missouri race for U.S. Senate, where Republican nominee Todd Akin attempted to defend his opposition to abortion and made the ridiculous statement that the female body has a way to prevent conception in cases of "legitimate rape." He later retracted, as he ought to have done. There is room for diversity in the GOP of views on the moral aspects of abortion; there's no room for disagreement on the questions of whether rape is ever welcome or how babies are made. Read More



Invest in BANCO SOCIAL... $5K at 6ms ...10% !!!

In Newsweek Magazine

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”
Newsweek
Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.
Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.
In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful. READ MORE

Wayuu Laptop Sleeve Wayuu Laptop Sleeve
NECESITA AYUDA ECONOMICA TEMPORAL?.... AET del Banco Social

 

Lo mejor de la semana · 13 – 19 de agosto de 2012


En la sección Lo mejor de la semana destacamos todo lo destacable acaecido durante estos días para que Ud. le eche un vistazo a los tópicos de actualidad sin perderse el análisis profundo de importantes temas READ MORE.

DREAM: Hay que resolver los retos de la inmigración

Jessica Zuckerman
El día 15 de agosto entró en vigor la normativa de la administración Obama de acción diferida para los denominados “soñadores” (DREAMers) , es decir, personas que entraron el país siendo menores de edad y que se hallan en situación ilegal

Gran Bretaña tiene razón: No al asilo para Assange

Dr. Ray Walser
A primera hora del día 16 de agosto, el ministro de Exteriores de Ecuador, Ricardo Patiño, anunció que su país le concede asilo político al fundador de WikiLeaks Julian Assange, eso sí, si puede llegar hasta Ecuador.

La nueva diplomacia pública: Hay que conocernos bien primero

Helle Dale
¿Cuál es el mensaje que Estados Unidos está tratando de transmitir y cómo lo conectamos con una buena normativa que sea coherente con los ideales americanos y aumente la seguridad nacional?

La energía eólica y los subsidios

Amy Payne
El analista de la Fundación Heritage Nicolas Loris ha expuesto las razones por las que el crédito fiscal para la producción de energía eólica tiene tanto sentido como un crédito fiscal para la producción de cintas VHS.


El gobierno se apropiará de casi la mitad de su sueldo en 2013

Patrick Tyrrel
¿Cuán alta es la tasa marginal del impuesto sobre los ingresos para cada dólar que gana el americano promedio? En otras palabras, ¿si Ud. tuviera un aumento de sueldo de un dólar, cuánto de ese dólar se iría en impuestos? Por desgracia, estas tasas ya son altas y van a sufrir una subida el próximo año.

Obama edita documentos del Departamento de Estado para hacerse propaganda

Amy Payne
El analista de la Fundación Heritage Jim Roberts, uno de los redactores del Índice de Libertad Económica, se reveló apabullado por el desproporcionado cambio en el énfasis de los textos mientras realizaba recientemente una investigación. Roberts, que trabajó en el Departamento de Estado desde 1982 hasta 2007 y solía escribir estos perfiles sobre países, comentó que nunca había visto unas redacciones como esas con ninguna de las anteriores administraciones, ya fueran republicanas o demócratas.

El Gráfico de la Semana: Déficits presupuestarios vs. Exportaciones

Bryan Riley
Si a los políticos verdaderamente les interesa que haya un aumento de las exportaciones de Estados Unidos, su principal prioridad debería ser la contención del gasto federal excesivo. Esto reduciría el déficit presupuestario, lo que a su vez resultaría en un menor número de bonos del Tesoro “exportados”.


Wayuu iPhone Cases Wayuu iPhone Case

sábado, 26 de mayo de 2012

Oohh if this was a Conservative...but for Democrats its COOL!

The husband of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President of the United States Bill Clinton, was snapped at a party in Monaco yukking it up with porn stars Brooklyn Lee (on his left arm) and Sasha Reign (on his right).
Lee then tweeted the photo to her Twitter followers.
Oops.
PHOTOS: Brooklyn Lee and Sasha Reign.

The husband of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President of the United States Bill Clinton, was snapped at a party in Monaco yukking it up with porn stars Brooklyn Lee (on his left arm) and Sasha Reign (on his right).
Lee then tweeted the photo to her Twitter followers.
Oops.

Obama and His Pot-Smoking ‘Choom Gang’


ap Barack obama high school nt 120525 wblog Obama and His Pot Smoking Choom Gang
Young Barack Obama
Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama never tried to say he didn’t inhale.
In his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father,” Obama writes about smoking pot almost like Dr. Seuss wrote about eating green eggs and ham. As a high school kid, Obama wrote, he would smoke “in a white classmate’s sparkling new van,” he would smoke “in the dorm room of some brother” and he would smoke “on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids.”
He would smoke it here and there. He would smoke it anywhere.
Now a soon-to-be published biography by David Maraniss entitled “Barack Obama: The Story” gives more detail on Obama’s pot-smoking days, complete with testimonials from young Barry Obama’s high school buddies, a group that went by the name “the Choom Gang.” Choom was slang for smoking marijuana.
Maraniss portrays the teenage Obama as not just a pot smoker, but a pot-smoking innovator.
“As a member of the Choom Gang,” Maraniss writes, “Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”
The first Obama-inspired trend: “Total Absorption” or “TA”.
“TA was the opposite of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled,” explains Maraniss. Here’s how it worked: If you exhaled prematurely when you were with the Choom Gang, “you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around.” Read More



A cuento de que los inmigrantes hispanos son en su mayoria Democratas?...eso es lo que nosotros creemos!


Nos han vendido esta idea de que somos una comunidad de ilegales o en raya con la ilegalidad o que nuestro estatus de inmigrantes en los Estados Unidos es de menor categoria que los diferentes grupos de inmigrantes que en olas han llenado este pais de gente honesta y trabajadora. Por este pensamiento creemos que nuestras soluciones vienen de parte del Gobierno...NO es asi!
 
Tenemos que despertar e ignorar aquellos que quieren vendernos valores a cambios de supuestas dadivas con promesas de legalidad o vias para la residencia o ciudadania.

Nosotros somos trabajadores, honestos, con fuertes valores familiares y religiosos, orgullosos de nuestro pasado, respetuosos de las leyes y defensores de los Estados Unidos de America. Nuestra verdadera inclusion sera cuando participemos activamente en nuestro destino politico, no como espectadores siguiendo  agrupaciones que no defienden nuestros ideales sino que estan detras de su agenda politica, sino con nuestra comunidad, en cada pequeña ciudad o municipalidad, defendiendo nuestro entrono, las escuelas y lo que nuestros hijos reciben de educacion, integrandonos a la cultura de nuestros vecinos e invitandolos a que se integren a la nuestra.

 

El futuro de la libertad depende de reivindicar los principios fundacionales de América. “Si una nación espera ser ignorante y libre en un estado civilizado, espera lo que nunca fue y nunca será” como ya advertía Thomas Jefferson. La extendida ignorancia acerca de la historia americana es solamente el síntoma más reconocido del preocupante declive del conocimiento popular de nuestros principios fundamentales. Nos enfrentamos a un sistema educativo que mantiene la mediocridad en nombre del relativismo; a un Estado centralizado, en permanente expansión y desancorado de los límites constitucionales; con jueces haciendo leyes abiertamente y moldeando la sociedad en base a filosofía popular y no a jurisprudencia seria; y a una creciente confusión sobre el legítimo papel de América en el mundo, algo que se ha hecho mucho más evidente debido a la amenaza fundamental que representan los islamistas radicales. En el fondo de todos estos problemas está la duda ubicua sobre los principios básicos que definen a América y que deberían inspirar nuestra política y nuestras normativas.