TPD...Three Paragraphs Daily!

To many "CINO's" - Catholics in name Only - abortion is a legal right, say whaaaat?....Israel: Exito de un pais si "nada"....Is Charles Barkley right?

2014-12-03T11:35:00.000-06:00

Abortion is a ‘legal right’: Hamilton Catholic chaplain running for Trudeau’s Liberals

Abortion , Filomena Tassi , Justin Trudeau

Amidst calls for her termination, the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board is standing behind a Catholic chaplain who is running for the pro-abortion Liberal Party of Canada in the next federal election and who says she opposes legal protections for the unborn.

Liberal candidate Filomena Tassihttp://votetassi.ca

Filomena Tassi is a salaried “chaplaincy leader” at Bishop Tonnos High School in Ancaster, just west of Hamilton, who has just won the Liberal nomination for the riding of Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas.

Tassi says she opposes the “criminalization” of abortion but claims to be pro-life. She says there’s no conflict between her “pro-life” views and her party’s requirement that she support abortion in the House of Commons. Pat Daly, the chairman of her school board, agrees with her.

But Jeff Gunnarson of Campaign Life Coalition told LifeSiteNews, “They should fire her. And the Catholic Diocese of Hamilton should say that any Catholic candidate should adhere to Catholic moral teaching on abortion.”

Gunnarson characterized Tassi’s comments to journalists as “doublespeak.” “We’ve heard it coming from several candidates. It looks like they are repeating a line the party is feeding them,” he said.

While Tassi did not return several calls from LifeSiteNews, she is reported by theHamilton Spectator as saying that “my personal view is that I'm pro-life” and also, “for-life."

As for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s requirement that all Liberal candidates must support abortion-on-demand, she says the issue is not likely to come up, given that the Conservative government is opposed to changing status quo and the other parties all support it. But how would she vote on a pro-life private members’ bill?

“I'm not for criminalization, but you know what? You’ve got to see that [the bill],” she told the Spectator. “I understand and accept the fact that there is a legal right for a woman to have an abortion. … I'm doing nothing to touch this. ... It's a decided matter. The courts decided what it is. ... No one wants to have an abortion. They do it because of the ends that they are trying to achieve. I am sensitive to the person.”

"I've talked to girls who have had abortions. I haven't helped them have abortions, but I look at the person. I support the person and I do whatever I can to help that person,” she added.

For his part, Trudeau told the CBC that Tassi and all other candidates have been thoroughly vetted on the abortion issue and agreed to support the party’s pro-abortion position in Parliament.

The vetting process is "very rigorous and very clear," he said, and Tassi agreed to vote pro-abortion. "That's how she became a candidate.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

When challenged with Trudeau’s statement, Tassi said, “The question is what exactly, what is the interpretation of what is being said. What does pro-choice mean, is what I would say to you. This is not clear enough to be specific to what we are talking about.”

Comments Gunnarson: “She wants to have her cake and eat it. She wants to keep her job in case she doesn’t get elected.”

Gunnarson added that as a pro-life politician it would be Tassi’s duty to try to change bad laws. “Tassi says the law of the land is that women have a right to abortion but they don’t. There is no law in Canada at all, and the courts have said that Parliament could make a law.”

Gunnarson said that for Tassi to stand for the Liberals, knowing their pro-abortion position conflicts with the teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Catholic school where she works, sends the wrong message to her students. “It tells them that you should park your Catholic faith when you get to the public square,” he said.

But Pat Daly, the chairman of the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic School Board, told LifeSiteNews he’s fine with Tassi because, “she says she’s pro-life all the way. She told me that when I was visiting her school last week and she’s told the media that. That’s the lesson we want our students to take.”

What about the Liberal Party requirement she support abortion in Parliament? “Read her comments” to the Spectator, he advised.

Teresa Pierre, president of Parents as First Educators, backed Gunnarson up, saying, “Since Justin Trudeau is claiming Tassi ... has committed to vote pro-abortion, she must either repudiate this position publicly or resign as a chaplain. If she does neither, she must be relieved of her duties by the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board.”

“This issue is about the killing of unborn babies. The Catholic Church teaching from the Bible through Canon Law is unequivocal: the taking of the life of an unborn baby is a terrible offence against God and the human family.”

Israel: El éxito de un país que no tiene ‘nada’

Domingo Soriano

03 / 12 / 2014

0 Comments

Visto desde fuera, Israel es quizás el país más sorprendente del mundo. Nunca he estado allí, pero casi todo lo que leo sobre su historia, sus instituciones y su gente me asombra. Nada tiene sentido. Es maravillosamente ilógico. Y, para un economista, apasionante.

Es que no hay cómo explicarlo: ocho millones de personas, metidas en una franja de terreno más pequeña que la Comunidad Valenciana. Tipos que en su gran mayoría salieron escapando de sus países de origen con apenas un puñado de posesiones. Familias que edificaron su hogar sobre el desierto más inhóspito. Rodeados de enemigos que querían acabar con ellos y que les obligaban a un esfuerzo económico para protegerse y a una dedicación de su tiempo que desde la confortable Europa Occidental no nos podemos imaginar.

Israel es el tercer país con más compañías en el Nasdaq, sólo por detrás de EEUU y China. Poseen una de las agriculturas más modernas y competitivas del mundo. Incluso han conseguido un sólido sector servicios que es capaz de atraer talento e inversiones.

Siempre he pensado que es exactamente el ejemplo contrario a la llamada maldición del petróleo, esa tendencia de los países ricos en recursos naturales a dilapidar los bienes a su alcance. Aparentemente, Israel no tiene nada: ni petróleo, ni oro ni minerales… Es que, por no haber, hasta escasea el bien más básico, el agua. ¿Cómo lo hacen?

A responder esa pregunta, entre otras cosas, se dedican Dan Senor y Saul Singer en uno de los libros de economía más entretenidos que recuerdo. Y digo economía pero podría decir política,sociedad o historia. El título, Start-Up Nation, nos puede llevar a pensar que se trata de una mera descripción del sector tecnológico israelí, quizás el segmento más sorprendente y exitoso de su economía. Pero este volumen es mucho más.

Es un retrato de una sociedad que sólo aparentemente no tiene nada. Porque en realidad posee unas cuantas cosas: orgullo, imaginación, ganas de salir adelante, atrevimiento, inteligencia, capital humano… En resumen, todo el potencial de sus ciudadanos. Vamos, ese tipo de bienes a los que normalmente nadie presta atención porque no se pueden tocar.

Por eso, leer este libro es como introducirse en una fantástica historia. Fantástica en sus dos acepciones: magnífica y difícil de creer. Porque casi hay que frotarse los ojos mientras te cuentan cómo una fábrica cumplía con sus compromisos con sus clientes en el extranjero en plena ofensiva terrorista, con cohetes cayendo a su alrededor. Y lo hacía gracias al empuje de sus trabajadores, que sólo abandonaban sus puestos para acudir al frente.

Para alguien crecido en una sociedad como la española, resulta igualmente difícil de imaginar cómo es ese ejército, en el que se mezclan sin ningún reparo directivos de multinacionales y los más modestos obreros. Una organización militar que es también una de las claves de la prosperidad del país, pues promueve contactos entre gente que nunca se habría conocido de otra manera. Y que permite que un chaval de 22 años de Tel Aviv se haya enfrentado a decisiones más comprometidas y delicadas (verdaderamente, de vida o muerte) que cualquiera de sus pares en Nueva York o Londres.

Todo esto, por no hablar del papel de sus inmigrantes. Esos desheredados que han ido llegando a sus costas en las últimas siete décadas simplemente en busca de un hogar. Sin nada. Con mucha esperanza y poco dinero.

Todo esto lo cuentan Senor y Singer. Y uno llega a la conclusión de que todas esas preguntas que se hacía al comenzar la lectura del libro empiezan a cobrar sentido. En España, cuando hablamos de empresarios (o emprendedores, esa palabra tan de moda), lo que se pide es atrevimiento, imaginación, atracción por el riesgo o capacidad para salirse de las soluciones convencionales. Háblele de eso a un tipo que ha guardado un puesto fronterizo ante Hezbolá. O a un hijo de un superviviente del Holocausto, que llegó solo en el año 48 a una tierra desconocida. O al habitante de una granja que se ha inventado (casi literalmente) el agua con que regar su huerto. ¿Abrir una empresa? ¡Venga ya! Eso es lo más fácil, seguro y cómodo que han hecho en sus vidas.

Israel tiene dos cosas para haberse convertido en una Start-Up Nation, una mentalidad orientada a la consecución de objetivos y la aceptación cultural de la necesidad de asumir nuevos retos.

Posted in Actualidad, Análisis, Estudios, Israel, Liderazgo Americano, Medio Oriente,Opinión, Pensamiento Político, Seguridad

Barkley: ‘We As Black People, We Have A Lot Of Crooks’

'There's a reason they racially profile us at times'

12.3.2014

News

Larry O'Connor

Former NBA great and TV analyst Charles Barkley has doubled-down on his previous remarks about the Ferguson rioters. In an interview with CNN Barkley said, "We as black people, we got a lot of crooks."

"There's a reason they racially profile us at times," he told CNN. "Sometimes it's wrong, sometimes its right."

Barkley recently called the rioters in Ferguson "scumbags" and he defended the acquittal of George Zimmermann in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Host Brooke Baldwin then challenged Barkley on the recent choke-hold death of Eric Garner in New York City and whether the altercation rises to the level of homicide. Barkley responded that what he saw on the video tape does not look like murder. "Well, I think the cops are trying to arrest him and they got a little aggressive. I think excessive force, uh, you know, or something like that, but to go right to 'murder'... Look, when the cops are trying to arrest you, if you fight back, things go wrong."

"Cops are awesome," he said.

Setting a 14 yr. Girl on fire for refusing abortion...what?...Ahora CHILE caminando pa'tras como el Cangrejo!!!...Racist police never shoot down on him: meet the Hypocrite Kenny Britt!

2014-12-02T12:55:00.000-06:00

Brooklyn's Gerritsen Beach, where Christian Ferdinand dumped the charred remains of 14-year-old Shaniesha Forbes after she refused to get an abortion.Wikimedia Commons

Ben Johnson

ABORTIONTue Dec 2, 2014 - 10:52 am EST

Man found guilty of murdering 14-year-old girl, setting her on fire, for refusing an abortion

Abortion Coercion , Crime

Jurors in New York City have found a 22-year-old man guilty of murdering a 14-year-old girl, setting her body on fire, then placing her charred remains in a suitcase and throwing them into the ocean last January after she refused to have an abortion.

The New York Daily News describes Christian Ferdinand as “a subhuman Brooklynite.” (He was born in Jamaica.)

Ferdinand was 20 years old when he met Shaniesha Forbes, a freshman at the Academy for Young Writers, on Facebook, and the two became sexually active. Forbes' mother, Sandra Price, said she knew her minor daughter was dating someone but did not know his name, age, or what he looked like.

Forbes texted Ferdinand one night to tell him that she was pregnant with his baby, and she would not have an abortion due to her mother's religious beliefs.

“My n—a, are you serious? Kill that s–t,” he replied.

The two met at his cousin's house later, but as they cuddled on the couch, Forbes would not relent on her plan to keep his baby – so he took matters into his own hands.

Ferdinand smothered the girl with a leather pillow, then charred her body with a lighter and placed her remains in a suitcase. He eventually threw the remains into Gerritsen Beach.

Forbes was reported missing on January 4. Police found her remains two days later, washed up on the beach.

“The defendant hoped that the saltwater would destroy any evidence the flames didn’t,” the prosecutor, Robert Walsh, said in his closing argument. “He had a problem that needed solving: He didn’t want to pay child support, and Shaniesha got in the way.”

Police records show that Ferdinand denied any involvement in her murder, until they produced DNA evidence tying him to the crime.

“It didn’t deserve to live,” Ferdinand told them.

Police had another surprise for him: Tests on her remains showed that Forbes was not pregnant, after all.

Court documents reveal that after confessing to the murder of Shaniesha Forbes, the young man asked officers, “Do you think I can get some kind of community service?”

The district attorney charged him with second-degree murder, and the jury took only one hour to convict Ferdinand on Monday.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

A female juror called the case “open and shut.”

“Young girls should be careful who they hook up with on the internet,” she said. “But he should not have done what he did.”

At his sentencing next month, he could receive 25 years to life.

“I don’t think God should forgive him,” Shaquana Forbes, Shaniesha's older sister, said.

“I hope he won’t see the light of day again. I will never see my baby again,” Price added.

Harold Crawford, a community advocate with 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, told the Bangor Daily News in Maine he hopes that young people learn the dangers of internet hookups. “Anytime someone on a social media site tells you to keep secrets, that’s when it’s time to cut it off,” he said.

Unfortunately, Forbes joins a growing list of young women who have been murdered when they refused to cave to their boyfriend or husband's pressure to abort a child.

A Pennsylvania man, Stephen Poaches, strangled his 24-year-old girlfriend, killing her and their unborn baby in a rage in July 2005.

In 1997, Alfred E. Smith of Louisiana killed his ex-girlfriend, Denna Moody, after she refused to abort their child. He was found guilty of committing second-degree murder.

Chile: Dándole la espalda a la libertad

Carlos Alberto Montaner

01 / 12 / 2014

1 Comment

Chile está dejando de ser la esperanza latinoamericana. Eso es grave para todos, no sólo para los chilenos.

Durante décadas, especialmente desde la llegada de la democracia a ese país, en 1989 (aunque la transformación había comenzado en época de la dictadura de Pinochet), resultaba obvio que la libertad, el funcionamiento de las instituciones de derecho, la apertura al mundo, la competencia, el mercado y la supremacía de la sociedad civil en el terreno económico habían probado que ése era el camino de la prosperidad para toda América Latina.

En Chile se confirmaba que la democracia liberal era la vía. El país, dentro de ese esquema, se había puesto a la cabeza de América Latina, más de la mitad de la sociedad se inscribía en los niveles sociales medios y la pobreza había pasado del 46 al 12%. Una verdadera proeza.

La nación de la loca geografía –una larga franja de tierra temblorosa situada entre el Pacífico y los Andes– estabaa pocos pasos del umbral del Primer Mundo, definido como las naciones que alcanzan los 25.000 dólares de producción anual per cápita. Bastaba recorrer las calles de Santiago y hablar con las gentes para percibir una sensación de optimismo y progreso mayor que en cualquier otra gran ciudad latinoamericana.

Ese espíritu se está apagando. Los datos de la encuestadora chilena Plaza Pública (Cadem) no dejan lugar a dudas. Un 71% de los ciudadanos piensa que la economía se ha estancado. Sólo un 27% opina lo contrario. Tras dos generaciones de prosperidad anual notable, con pocas contramarchas, el primer año de la presidente Bachelet se saldará con apenas un 1,6% de crecimiento, pese a que Sebastián Piñera le entregó un país que funcionaba a plena máquina.

Naturalmente, eso tiene un costo. Cuando Bachelet llegó al poder, hace sólo ocho meses, un 78% de los chilenos tenía una buena imagen de ella. Hoy sólo la aprecia el 48, mientras su Gobierno es aún más impopular: apenas un 37% lo respalda.

¿Por qué se ha frenado Chile? Fundamentalmente, por una ruptura clarísima sobre el modelo de desarrollo. Los inversionistas locales y extranjeros tienen dudas y se abstienen. Ven a la señora Bachelet más cerca del viejo Chile estatista-populista que de una nación moderna basada en las ideas de la libertad económica, y no pueden evitar una desagradable sensación de deja vuque los retrotrae a los turbulentos años del allendismo.

La perciben como una persona encharcada en las supersticiones ideológicas del distribuicionismo igualitario, obsesionada con el Índice Gini y no con la creación de riquezas, que es lo que realmente importa. Al fin y al cabo, el coeficiente Gini de Venezuela es mejor que el de Chile y no creo que nadie en sus cabales piense que la gravísima situación del manicomio chavista es preferible a la chilena.

Si la presidenta Bachelet no rectifica, muy probablemente provocará la salida de la Democracia Cristiana de la coalición de gobierno. Es increíble que esta señora no advierta que la buena experiencia de las ideas de la libertad en su país ha corrido hacia el centrotodo el espectro político.

El socialcristianismo de izquierda de los años cincuenta y sesenta del siglo pasado ya no es lo que era. La democracia cristiana de Frei Ruiz-Tagle es diferente a la de Frei Montalva, su padre, porque entre ambos mundos existe medio siglo de inocultables éxitos liberales y el hundimiento de las recetas estatistas. El socialismo de Ricardo Lago tiene muy poco que ver con el de Salvador Allende, aunque respetuosamente cultive su memoria, porque en el camino de la lucha por la libertad Lago se transformó en un genuino socialdemócrata y enterró el lastre marxista.

En cambio, quienes no se han movido de su posición fanática son los comunistas (esos que Bachelet se empeñó tercamente en llevar a la Concertación), y continúan defendiendo un empobrecedor modelo de sociedad; pero en el pecado ideológico llevan la penitencia: la bonita Camilo Vallejo, quien era muy popular cuando figuraba como revoltosa líder estudiantil de la oposición, tras pasar al Parlamento, hoy apenas tiene el aprecio del 3% de los chilenos.

Ojalá Chile retorne al carril del sentido común y el buen gobierno. Fue un faro para orientar a los latinoamericanos. Perderlo, insisto, nos perjudicará a todos.

Posted in Actualidad, América Latina, Análisis, Destacables, Economía, Estudios,Libertad económica, Opinión, Pensamiento Político

Carlos Alberto Montaner

Ver artículos escritos por Carlos Alberto Montaner →

Tags: Chile, distribuicionismo igualitario, libertad. libertad económica, Marxismo,Michelle Bachelet, populismo, progreso

‘Hands Up Don’t Shoot’ Player Arrested Multiple Times

Rams’ Kenny Britt miraculously managed never to get shot by “racist” police despite several arrests.

12.2.2014

News

Bradford Thomas

The St. Louis Rams player who initiated the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” protest at the game against the Oakland Raiders Sunday has a long rap sheet, but, despite multiple arrests, the Rams’ Kenny Britt has thus far managed not to get shot by the “racist” police he and his teammates protested.

Before taking the field Sunday, Britt encouraged his teammates Stedman Bailey, Tavon Austin, Jared Cook, and Chris Givens to join him in raising their hands up in solidarity for Michael Brown, a gesture discredited by mounds of evidence released by the prosecutor earlier that week. Though Britt later said they weren’t taking sides, the implications of the action were obvious: the police were guilty of killing an innocent black teen, a provocative statement to say the least after a week filled with violent protests in the St Louis area.

Britt choosing to protest is particularly curious given his past experience with law enforcement, none of which involved him being shot by “racist” officers. Here’s a summary of Britt's recent trouble (h/t D.C. Clothesline):

April 2011 - Arrested on three charges after leading police in car chase:

Britt, 22, the former Bayonne High star, was arrested Tuesday afternoon after leading Bayonne police on a high-speed car chase, Bayonne Police Chief Robert Kubert said today.
Britt -- was charged with eluding the police, hindering apprehension, and obstructing a governmental function -- was traveling 71 miles per hour in a 50 mph zone, on 21st Street and Route 440 in his blue Porsche at 4:30 p.m., reports said.
A passenger in the car, Jerel Andre Lord, 23, also of Bayonne, was charged with resisting arrest, hindering apprehension, possession of CDS and obstructing governmental function, Kubert said.

June 2011 – Arrested for two counts of resisting arrest after a careless driving charge:

Tennessee Titans football star Kenny Britt was arrested in Hoboken yesterday, only one day after he pleaded guilty to careless driving in his hometown of Bayonne,officials said.
Britt, now of Brentwood, Tenn., was arrested last night at Willow Avenue and 15th Street by Hoboken narcotics officers and charged with two counts of resisting arrest, official said today.

July 2012 – Arrested for DUI:

Tennessee Titans receiver Kenny Britt was arrested early Friday morning at Ft. Campbell and charged with DUI.
Bob Jenkins, spokesperson for the military base, said Britt was taken into custody around 3:30 a.m. outside Gate 4 after he failed a field sobriety test and refused to take a breathalyzer.
His vehicle was impounded at the post after he was released by military police on his own recognizance.

August 2012 – Suspended for "repeated violation" of NFL player conduct policy:

The NFL suspended Titans wide receiver Kenny Britt one game for repeated violations of the league’s personal conduct policy, according to sources familiar with the situation.
The suspension comes nearly 3½ weeks after Britt was summoned to New York to meet with Commissioner Roger Goodell for the second time in a year.

After the protest, Britt told reporters that he and his teammates weren’t taking sides:

“We just wanted to let the (Ferguson) community know that we support them," said Britt. "I don’t want the people in the community to feel like we turned a blind eye to it. What would I like to see happen? Change in America.”

The St. Louis Police Officers Association quickly responded to the provocative protest with a call to “throw the flag” on the players, but Rams Coach Jeff Fisher announced Monday that no disciplinary action would be taken by either the league or the team.

Image source.

Gay activists = sex abuser profiles?...Capitalismo o Progresivismo (Comunismo con paciencia)?...Men and abortion!

2014-12-01T11:54:00.002-06:00

Dustin Siggins

FAMILY, HOMOSEXUALITYFri Nov 28, 2014 - 2:36 pm EST

Co-founder of gay activist group HRC charged with sex abuse of 15-year-old boy

Gay Abuse , Homosexuality , Human Rights Campaign , Terrence Bean

A co-founder of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has been arrested and charged with sex crimes in the alleged abuse of a 15-year old boy.

Terrence "Terry" Bean, 66, and his 25-year old ex-boyfriend Kiah Lawson, were arrested last week in Lane County, Oregon for alleged abuse of the unnamed minor. Police charged Bean with two felony charges of third-degree sodomy and one count of third-degree sex abuse.

Founded in 1980, HRC is possibly the most prominent gay activist organization in the world. It promotes same-sex “marriage,” advocates for gay Boy Scout leaders, and promotes “LGBT inclusive" school curriculum from the earliest years.

Since Bean's arrest, HRC has deleted him from its list of Board of Directors members. Bean had worked closely with the organization for 34 years since its founding. As a real estate mogul, Bean was instrumental in HRC acquiring the building that serves as its headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. in 2002.

Bean was a prominent backer of President Obama in 2008 and 2012, bundling over $500,000 between Obama's two presidential campaigns.

HRC has recently come under fire for its hit list targeting pro-family leaders. The hit list has left at least two leaders saying that they fear for their lives.

Pro-family leaders reacted swiftly to news of Bean’s arrest. The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer talked about Bean's arrest on his radio show, and former Massachuesetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively blogged that Bean's arrest was "dramatic vindication" in light of HRC "recently nam[ing] me LGBT Global Public Enemy #1."

The pro-family group Mass Resistance called upon corporate sponsors of an HRC conference in Boston this past Saturday to retract their support.

Fischer said Bean’s is emblematic of a higher propensity of abuse of minors by homosexuals. At least two significant studies have found that gay men abuse minor boys at a significantly higher rate than heterosexual men abuse minor girls, though gay activists dispute the claim.

A 2002 analysis of studies by the Family Research Council (FRC) concluded that "the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls."

"To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse," continued the analysis. Among the relevant factors are that child sexual abuse is mostly done by men, that one-third of child sex abuse cases are against males, and that "less than three percent of the population are homosexuals."

"Thus," concluded FRC, "a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."

The arrest is just the latest in months of public turmoil for Bean, who over the summer was accused by Lawson of having a camera in Bean's bedroom and was “surreptitiously videotaping his sexual encounters with Lawson and a handful of other men.” This caused the relationship to end, restraining orders to be filed by both Bean and Lawson, and for Bean to try to evict Lawson from a condo owned by the older man.

Bean's legal team has said he is the target of an extortion effort by Lawson. Attorney Kristen Winemiller told Willamette Week, "We went to the police bureau because Lawson and his associates are dangerous men who were, and almost certainly still are, preying on gay men of all ages and walks of life.''

"Over the course of several months in 2013-2014, Terry was the victim of an extortion ring led by several men known to law enforcement,” Winemiller said. “This current arrest is connected to the ongoing investigation of that case in which Mr. Bean has fully cooperated. No allegations against Bean should be taken at face value. We look forward to the opportunity to clear his name.”

A former lawyer for Lawson has said that "the surprising thing to me is Kiah was indicted in this case because it was Kiah who helped authorities find this kid. If someone is going to cooperate and be helpful for the police there should be some kind of reward for that. It could have a chilling effect on others coming forward.'' Lawson is still being held on bail related to the felony abuse charges, while Bean is out on bail.

Capitalismo y voracidad

Carlos Rodríguez Braun

26 / 11 / 2014

0 Comments

Comentaba el periodista y escritor español Javier Reverte sobre el fracaso europeo, “que tiene dos caras: la de un capitalismo que ha vuelto a recuperar sus hábitos de voracidad despiadada y la de una ideología socialdemócrata que no ha sido capaz de sujetar las riendas al desbocado capital financiero”. Diagnosticó así la situación de los socialistas: “su rendición a los dictados de las leyes del mercado ha supuesto una capitulación sin condiciones” de su idea original de “conciliar la libertad con la justicia social”, y el resultado ha sido que”la riqueza es hoy más poderosa que los gobiernos”. Aquí hay tres errores.

Veamos primero la piedad capitalista. Uno podría recaer en las habituales caricaturas de los capitalistas malvados, pero lo que no puede hacerse nunca es dar a entender implícitamente que la perversidad censurada depende críticamente de la institución que es objeto de censura. Digamos, si afirmamos que el capitalismo es despiadado y no decimos nada más, estamos sugiriendo que el no capitalismo rebosa de piedad. El señor Reverte no puede no saber que esto último no es verdad, porque las instituciones del capitalismo –la propiedad privada y los contratos voluntarios– han sido más o menos quebrantadas en el planeta en el pasado, y nada permite concluir que su quebrantamiento está asociado con más piedad que su preservación.

El segundo equívoco estriba en diseñar el perfil de la impiedad capitalista. Don Javier presume de diagnosticarlo: el capitalismo era menos voraz pero ahora es más voraz. No hay forma de probar esto seriamente. Si el capitalismo fuera más voraz nunca habría permitido que sus beneficios fueran expropiados; al contrario, habría arrinconado al Estado y habría reducido su tamaño, peso y poder. Asombrosamente, eso es lo que dice el señor Reverte que ha sucedido: “La riqueza es hoy más poderosa que los gobiernos”. La verdad es justo la contraria, porque nunca los Estados han sido más grandes, nunca las regulaciones han sido más intrusivas, nunca los impuestos han sido más elevados.

El tercer error se refiere a la socialdemocracia. Cualquiera que la conozca mínimamente sabe que no es cierto que se haya “rendido” al mercado libre. Ningún socialista de ningún país jamás ha hecho tal cosa, y, al contrario, todos los socialistas del mundo reivindican un papel importante del Estado que limite el mercado libre, y cuando gobiernan llevan a la práctica esa idea, como hemos visto reiteradamente en España y muchos otros países.

Por fin, la noción de “conciliar la libertad con la justicia social” jamás ha sido una idea peculiar del socialismo sino la cálida ficción que ha amparado el crecimiento del Estado, o que al menos ha bloqueado su reducción apreciable, en todos los países y bajo todas las ideologías de todos los partidos.

Nicholas Baklinski, shown here cradling his newborn son, says the news of New Brunswick's decision to liberalize its abortion regulations, coming mere days after the birth of his child, has convicted him of the dire need to fight abortion.

Nicholas Baklinski

ABORTIONFri Nov 28, 2014 - 4:16 pm EST

My newborn son helped reawaken in me the horror of abortion: young father

Abortion

Editor’s note: Nicholas Baklinski, son of LifeSiteNews journalist Ted Baklinski, writes about how the birth of his son, just days prior to New Brunswick announcing that it is changing its abortion regulations to make it easier for women, made him look at abortion in an entirely new light.

This past week my wife did an amazing job of birthing our little son into the world! What a wonderful joy it is to have such a fresh experience of new life, manifested so uniquely for parents within the first seconds and hours of a child being brought forth into the world. For my wife, the delivery of this new little healthy bundle of life was the fulfillment of a 37-week high-risk pregnancy, a pregnancy that always seemed to be an uphill battle from the start, with many mountains that seemed impossible to cross. His birth was, in short, a complete miracle for her, for us.

After arriving home from many days spent in the hospital, I was out driving to our local town on an errand and still much filled with the emotion of the past day’s events. I had just turned on the vehicle’s radio to CBC and the broadcaster was announcing the changes New Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant was making to the province’s abortion regulations to “increase capacity” and “improve access.” The broadcaster droned on, saying the effect of this new bill would be that women would no longer need the customary two-doctor approval as well as a qualified specialist to perform an abortion.

My heart quite literally jumped in my chest and for a moment I felt sick. “What?” I asked myself, “What did I just hear?” For the first time in such a long time it hit me hard — and in a new way — what we humans are doing to so, so many of our beautiful children.

I turned off the radio and for a moment I just asked myself, “What are we doing? What are we allowing to happen?”

Deafening words rang out over and over in my head: “We’re killing them! We’re killing them! Our little girls and boys!”

The words would not stop echoing inside me. My hands gripped the steering wheel tighter as a fatherly urge seemed to flow through my body for the need to safeguard and protect my three little children from some unseen evil presence that was lurking and seeking to devour.

I was also stunned at how nonchalantly the broadcaster had just reported how women are being given a more streamlined way to kill their pre-born babies.

Then it hit me: “I have become so desensitized.” This disregard for the beauty of life has permeated our culture. It is something I have heard so constantly, everywhere, with slogans like: “Woman’s Choice!” “My Body, My Choice!” It seems to pour out from every faucet of media out there and it had worn down my sensitivity. Though I am completely opposed to this “Right to Choose” to destroy that which I now hold close and cuddle so tenderly, the urgency in me to “act” had been dulled in the busyness of my day-to-day life.

So, thank you to my new little son who brings to me so much life and joy, for reawakening this inner “urgency” to stand up for the right-to-life for all children.

I have a rekindled gratitude and want to say “thank you” to those who are in the streets, marketplaces, media, in jail, in prayer and fasting, and who relentlessly spend their time, energy, and finances for the cause of defending life. I have gratitude for those who are saying “YES” to life in their marriages and are sharing this gift of new life with the world. The birth of every new child is ultimately a sign of hope for a new springtime for the entire world.

What you are doing makes a difference and is so much needed. Please carry on.

Now is not the time to become complacent, but to rise up and take action against this dark force that is sweeping across our nation and destroying that which we hold so dear to our hearts, our little children!

We mustn’t give up in this fight for the right of so many innocent ones, even if it appears to be an impassible mountain range, because yes, miracles do happen and my son is proof of it!

Nicholas Baklinski, a carpenter, writes from his home in Combermere, ON, where he lives with his wife Rhea and his three young children.

Pope to EU: Protect life!!!....Por que en Latinoamerica no Inventamos?...Obama and Race relations: Better or Worse?

2014-11-26T09:15:00.001-06:00

CATHOLIC CHURCHTue Nov 25, 2014 - 6:47 pm EST ...John Henry Westen

Pope to EU Parliament: Protect life, dignity and avoid ‘angelic forms of purity’

European Parliament , Pope Francis

In a speech to the European Parliament and the Council of Europe Tuesday, Pope Francis said that today, “the promotion of human rights is central to the commitment of the European Union to advance the dignity of the person.” He warned against treating human beings as objects who can “be discarded when no longer useful, due to weakness, illness or old age.”

But that dignity also requires, he said “the possibility of freely expressing one’s thought or professing one’s religious faith.” Promoting the dignity of the person, said the Pope, “means recognizing that he or she possesses inalienable rights which no one may take away arbitrarily, much less for the sake of economic interests.”

A misuse and misunderstanding of human rights happens today, said Francis, when “the rights of the individual are upheld, without regard for the fact that each human being is part of a social context wherein his or her rights and duties are bound up with those of others and with the common good of society itself.” What is required is “to develop a culture of human rights which wisely links the individual, or better, the personal aspect, to that of the common good, of the ‘all of us’ made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society,” added Pope Francis, quoting a passage from Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate.

Without that proper ordering of the rights of each individual to the greater good, “those rights will end up being considered limitless and consequently will become a source of conflicts and violence.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“Men and women risk being reduced to mere cogs in a machine that treats them as items of consumption to be exploited,” said Francis, “with the result that – as is so tragically apparent – whenever a human life no longer proves useful for that machine, it is discarded with few qualms, as in the case of the ill, the terminally ill, the elderly who are abandoned and uncared for, and children who are killed in the womb.”

The pope also drew direct attention to Christians persecuted in Islamic countries. “Here I cannot fail to recall the many instances of injustice and persecution which daily afflict religious minorities, and Christians in particular, in various parts of our world,” he said. “Communities and individuals today find themselves subjected to barbaric acts of violence: they are evicted from their homes and native lands, sold as slaves, killed, beheaded, crucified or burned alive, under the shameful and complicit silence of so many.”

“Keeping democracy alive in Europe requires avoiding the many globalizing tendencies to dilute reality,” said the pope. Those harmful tendencies, he said, are “angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems lacking kindness, and intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom.”

He called on Europe to invest in the family, “the fundamental cell and most precious element of any society.”

“The family, united, fruitful and indissoluble, possesses the elements fundamental for fostering hope in the future,” said Pope Francis. “Without this solid basis, the future ends up being built on sand, with dire social consequences.”

¿Por qué los latinoamericanos apenas inventamos o innovamos?

Carlos Alberto Montaner

25 / 11 / 2014

0 Comments

Foto por Andrés Rodríguez

¿Por qué los latinoamericanos apenas inventamos o innovamos? El periodista Andrés Oppenheimer, colaborador de CNN y de otros cien medios de comunicación, ha retomado con ímpetu la hiriente pregunta. La ha planteado en un libro excelente de título imperioso y subtítulo descriptivo: ¡Crear o morir! La esperanza de Latinoamérica y las cinco claves de la innovación.

Me parece un tema extraordinariamente importante que afecta a todo el ámbito hispano, no sólo a América Latina. A principios del siglo XX los filósofos españoles José Ortega y Gasset y Miguel de Unamuno lo debatieron apasionadamente en diversos textos y desde distintos ángulos.

España se atrasaba ostensiblemente con relación al resto de Europa. Ortega sostenía que la decadencia del país se superaba europeizándose. “España es el problema, Europa la solución”, decía. Unamuno alegaba que el genio español era artístico, fundamentalmente literario, y remataba el argumento con un grito desafiante: “¡Que inventen ellos!”.

Si Unamuno hubiera sabido economía en lugar de filología clásica le habría agregado una coda a su boutade: que inventen ellos… y que se enriquezcan ellos. Algunos expertos suponen que el 40% del crecimiento económico de las sociedades se deriva de las innovaciones e invenciones convertidas en bienes o servicios volcados en el mercado.

Los datos son alarmantes. Corea del Sur registra anualmente diez veces más invenciones que toda América Latina. Israel, con menos de ocho millones de habitantes, patenta más hallazgos científicos o artefactos novedosos que 600 millones de latinoamericanos.

No hay ninguna universidad latinoamericana ni española entre las primeras cien del planeta, y apenas comparece un puñado entre las primeras 500. Y no se trata solamente de estudios universitarios: en las pruebas internacionales PISA, consagradas a medir y contrastar los conocimientos de los adolescentes en matemáticas, ciencias y comprensión de lectura, América Latina aparece en la cola, muy cerca de algunas naciones africanas.

En el mundo hispano vivimos a remolque de los países innovadores. Nos movemos en sus aviones, nos curamos con sus medicinas, trabajamos en sus computadoras, nos entretenemos con sus películas y videojuegos, viajamos por su internet, hablamos por sus teléfonos, nos asomamos al espacio gracias al talento que ellos han desplegado y, en definitiva, somos un apéndice casi inerte de ese primer mundo curioso y creativo que va gestando día a día nuestro futuro y la forma en que vivimos nuestras vidas.

El libro de Oppenheimer rezuma admiración por los creadores, a quienes ha visitado durante la redacción de su obra. Ha hablado con ellos y los ha entrevistado para conocer sus testimonios de primera mano, pero su intención no es avergonzar a los latinoamericanos por su postración intelectual. Por el contrario, el autor ofrece soluciones a estas graves limitaciones. La obra culmina con cinco recomendaciones encaminadas a revitalizar las tendencias innovadoras. Vale la pena consignarlas. Están cargadas de sentido común.

Primero, crear una cultura de innovación en la que se distinga y venere a los creadores, como se hace con los deportistas, para estimular la aparición de estos talentosos ciudadanos. Cada emprendedor que se frustra es una fuente de riqueza y desarrollo que perdemos todos. Si estamos de acuerdo en que la clave de la prosperidad está en el empuje de personas excepcionales, hallarlas y cultivarlas debería ser una prioridad del Estado.Segundo, es posible y es necesario educar para que surjan los inventores e innovadores. Oppenheimer lo resume con un dato estadístico escalofriante: en Irlanda y Finlandia, de acuerdo con la población, hay cinco veces más graduados en ingeniería que en Argentina. El gusto por las matemáticas y por las ciencias comienza en la niñez. En esa etapa de la vida se puede abordar estas materias como si fueran juegos.

Tercero, eliminar las leyes que ahogan a los emprendedores. En América Latina la madeja burocrática asfixia a los espíritus creativos. Hay que pagar sobornos a funcionarios corruptos. Las leyes de quiebra impiden o hacen muy difícil que quienes fracasen puedan levantarse de nuevo, olvidando que la economía libre es un sistema de tanteo y error donde cada caída forma parte de un proceso de aprendizaje.

Cuarto, hay que invertir en investigación y desarrollo y en fomentar el capital de riesgo. Israel es el país del mundo que proporcionalmente dedica el mayor porcentaje del PIB a investigación y desarrollo. Pero ese dinero debe salir, en mayor proporción, de las empresas privadas. Hay que involucrar a las universidades en las tareas de las empresas. Las universidades no deben convertirse en instituciones antisistema. Eso es suicida.

Quinto, debe globalizarse la innovación y ello incluye servirse de la posibilidad de estudiar en las universidades del Primer Mundo. Corea del Sur, con apenas 50 millones de habitantes, tiene 71.000 estudiantes en USA, la mayor parte en carreras de ciencias, mientras toda América Latina posee menos de la mitad de esa cifra.

En fin: el camino es arduo y extenso, pero cuanto antes comencemos, mejor nos irá.

Ben Carson: Race Relations Were BetterBefore Obama Was Elected

"I think that things have gotten worse because of his unusual emphasis on race."

11.25.2014

News

Jeff Dunetz

Potential 2016 GOP candidate Ben Carson was a guest on Tuesday's Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss in part Ferguson and race relations. According the African-American Carson, "things were better before this president was elected." The problem, he explained, was the president's "unusual emphasis on race."

Carson is a retired neurosurgeon who is perhaps best known for his speech at the national prayer breakfast where he openly criticized President Obama's progressive policies while Obama was right there beside him. Carson's central argument is that progressives like Obama try to make minorities play the victim game. In his interview with Hewitt, Carson continued his unflinching critique of the failures of both the president and the progressive ideology:

Hewitt: Is it going to get worse before it gets better in the United States? Because, after all, we’ve had an African-American president for six years, Ferguson is a racially-charged situation. You’re an African-American running for president on the Republican side, and I say that with the assumption that you will run, and I know you haven’t formally declared, but you’re all but in. Is it going to be another hundred years before this tableau stops unfolding every time there’s a white-black incident?
Carson: Well, you know, I actually believe that things were better before this president was elected. And I think that things have gotten worse because of his unusual emphasis on race.
Hewitt: Can you explain more? What do you mean by that? How did they get worse, and how did he contribute to it?
Carson: Well, for instance, in the incident with Henry Louis Gates, Skip Gates, and him calling out the police, and you know, how they always do this kind of thing, and the Trayvon Martin case, you know, if I had a son, this is what he would look like, rather than trying to take the balanced, objective look at things, and then, you know, what’s happened here. And then the way, which really irritates me to some degree, the way he and a bunch of progressives manipulate, particularly minority communities, to make them feel that they are victims. And of course if you think you’re a victim, you are a victim. And...
Hewitt: Was Michael Brown a victim, Dr. Carson?
Carson: Well, he became a victim based on perhaps not having a well-established ideal of how to relate to authority.
Hewitt: Let me also ask you when you say things were better before this president, some have said the President plays the so-called race card. Do you think he does?
Carson: Yes, absolutely.
Hewitt: Is he doing so right now?
Carson: He’s trying very hard not to, because I think he is aware that people are suspicious of him doing that. So you know, we keep an eye on him and hope for the best.

A president that supports "post-birth abortion" cites Scripture!!!...Quien crea los Empleos? muchos creen que es el Gobierno! ...Oh Bill Cosby, who is or was this man?

2014-11-24T12:28:00.000-06:00

‘Repugnant’: Fox News, Huckabee outraged that president who backs post-birth abortion cites Scripture

Barack Obama , Bible , Immigration , Mike Huckabee , Tucker Carlson

President Obama made waves when he invited millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the promised land. Conservative commentators, and a potential 2016 presidential candidate, say it is “repugnant” that the president would quote the Bible to support his executive order exempting millions of people from immigration law while defending late-term abortion.

In a televised address unveiling his executive order to exempt family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents from deportation, the president quoted the Old Testament. "Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger – we were strangers once, too,” he said. “We were strangers once, too."

On Fox and Friends Friday morning, Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson called Obama's Scripture spouting "repugnant."

"For this guy specifically – the president who spent his career defending late-term abortion, among other things – lecturing us on Christian faith?” he said. “That's too much. That is too much. This is the Christian Left at work, and it's repugnant."

He went on to say Obama's use of the Holy Book to promote left-wing policies was “out-of-bounds.”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee agreed, likening the president's changing view of Scripture to “the way that his Biblical beliefs led him to oppose same-sex marriage as a candidate for election. Then when he needed big campaign donations from gay liberals for his reelection, the Bible suddenly got rewritten.”

President Obama referred to Scripture to justify his support for redefining marriage, saying his decision to bolster gay “marriage” was based on the Golden Rule.

In reality, the Bible describes homosexuality as an “abomination” (Leviticus 20:13), a sin that disqualifies its practitioner from entering Heaven (I Corinthians 6:9-10), and an unnatural act that signifies God has given a society over to complete depravity (Romans 1:24-32). The Christian church has considered homosexual relations a grave sin from its earliest days.

The Bible's position on immigration policy is less than unambiguous.

The president has been accused of citing the Bible for purely political reasons. Political science professor John Green of the University of Akron recently told USA Today that Obama's “ramping up his ‘God-talk’” is “a strategic emphasis on his part. He didn’t speak this way when he was at 60 percent public approval.”

Speaking about religion has been a dicey proposition for the president. Obama's chief connection to church was his attendance at the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an “Afro-centric” pastor who has shouted “God d—n America” from the pulpit.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“I always thought that Scripture was eternal and unchanging,” Huckabee said, “but apparently, now that Obama is President, Scripture gets rewritten more often than Bill Cosby's Wikipedia entry.”

¿Quién crea los empleos?

Information Station

24 / 11 / 2014

0 Comments

En un intento por ayudar a una economía aletargada, muchos políticos recurren al gobierno por ayuda para crear empleo. Pero ¿quién crea realmente los empleos?

Afortunadamente, se trata de una pregunta que se puede responder con datos. Según el Departamento de Trabajo de Estados Unidos, 117.5 millones de americanos están empleados en empresas y compañías; es lo que se conoce como el “sector privado” (este número incluye a los 22.4 millones de americanos autoempleados que dirigen empresas unipersonales).

Por otro lado, el Departamento de Trabajo informa de que 21.9 millones de americanos son empleados del gobierno, ya sea federal, estatal o local; es lo que se conoce como el “sector público”. Estas dos categorías componen el total de los 139.4 millones de americanos empleados, lo que significa que el 84.2% de los trabajadores americanos son empleados de empresas privadas.

Pero, ¿responden por sí solos estos datos a la pregunta de quién crea empleo? Bueno, sí y no. Mencionar que los 117.5 millones de trabajadores del sector privado vieron cómo sus puestos de trabajo “se creaban” cuando fueron contratados es una simple observación que hasta un político debería ser capaz de entender. Al mismo tiempo, también es cierto que las empresas han tenido muchas dificultades para crear empleo estos últimos años.

De hecho, desde 2007 las empresas sólo han creado una cantidad neta de 1.5 millones de empleos, mientras que la población ha crecido en alrededor de 20 millones. Hay multitud de teorías que explican esta pobre creación de empleo, pero pocas negarán que las empresas (al igual que un gran número de americanos) han afrontado numerosos contratiempos económicos en años recientes.

Muchos políticos y comentaristas sugieren que el gobierno debería ponerse manos a la obra y crear más empleos en el sector público para los americanos. Pero eso no es tan fácil. Como el gobierno no crea su propia riqueza para pagar los empleos en el sector público (a diferencia de, por ejemplo, una pizzería que paga sueldos con sus ingresos), el gobierno debe pagar sueldos con el dinero de los impuestos o pidiéndolo prestado. Y cada dólar extra de los impuestos gastado en empleo público significa un dólar menos para que lo gastemos comprando, por ejemplo, pizzas y autos o contratando a profesores de piano para nuestros hijos.

Como resultado de ello, se crean menos empleos en el sector privado.

En este sentido, los empleos públicos son a costa del empleo en el sector privado.

Más empleo público requiere más impuestos para poder pagarlos. Eso significa menos dólares para crear empleos en el sector privado, lo que significa menos gente a la que cobrarle impuestos. Esa espiral descendente ha llevado a la bancarrota a muchas grandes naciones en la historia e incluso a algunas grandes ciudades de Estados Unidos. Por tanto, cuando analizamos este asunto un poco más de cerca, vemos que el sector privado crea no sólo la mayoría de todos los empleos, sino también muchos de los empleos del sector público porque éstos se crean a partir de los impuestos.

Ex-model says Cosby hid behind image of Cliff Huxtable

Published November 24, 2014

FoxNews.com

April 6, 2011. Actor Bill Cosby speaks at the National Action Network's 20th annual Keepers of the Dream Awards gala in New York. (Reuters)

A former model has branded Bill Cosby “America’s greatest serial rapist that ever got away with for the longest amount of time.”

Jewel Allison told New York’s Daily News that the beloved comedian “got away with it because he was hiding behind the image of Cliff Huxtable.”

In the late 1980’s Allison says she was introduced to Cosby by her agent and ended up attending a small dinner party at his brownstone in New York.

“He said he wanted to help models and actors who were well-educated, who could do something else,” she recalled. “I thought, ‘Wow, this is Bill Cosby.’”

He then followed up with phone calls in which he told her, “I love your laugh.”

A couple of weeks later Allison accepted another dinner invitation where it was just the two of them. During the meal he produced a vintage bottle of wine, supposedly a gift from Chrysler exec Lee Iacocca.

She claims that the wine tasted terrible and left her feeling ill and woozy. She sat down on a couch and Cosby then allegedly lifted her up and led her into another room telling her to look in a mirror and, “see the glow in your face.”

Allison says Cosby grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitals.

“That was my sexual assault by this comedian,” she said. “He turned me around and said, ‘Let’s get you home.’ At the door, he gave me a very hard embrace and a hard kiss.”

In the taxi on the way home Allison threw up. Cosby later invited her to spend the night at his home in Philadelphia. She declined.

“There’s no such thing as America’s Dad,” she said. “There’s just a man named Bill Cosby. He’s a very sick sociopath.”

Meanwhile female staffers are relieved that the beleaguered comic has cancelled his appearance on “The Late Show with David Letterman.”

A source close to the show told The New York Daily News that he had some rather odd backstage requirements.

“He’d include as a request, before he arrived, that the young girls, interns and assistants, all had to gather around in the green room backstage and sit down and watch him eat curry,” the source revealed. “No one would say anything, and he would sit silently eating and make us watch and want us to watch.”

Pope Francis must clarify Church teachings on Sexuality...America es un pais de Inmigrantes!!!....Women in the US take rights for Granted!

2014-11-21T12:55:00.000-06:00

Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Vatican's Apostolic SignaturaSteve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews

Hilary White

CATHOLIC CHURCH, VATICAN SYNOD ON THE FAMILY - 2014Fri Nov 21, 2014 - 12:47 pm EST

Cardinal Burke: Church teaching on sexuality must be clarified, and only Pope Francis can do it

Cardinal Raymond Burke , Catholic , Pope Francis , Synod On The Family

In an interview with Ireland’s state broadcaster, RTE, one of the Catholic hierarchy’s most outspoken defenders of life and family and the Church’s sexual moral teachings again indicated Pope Francis needs to “clarify” that divorced and remarried Catholics, and active homosexuals, cannot be admitted to the sacraments.

As he did during the course of the contentious Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in Rome last month, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke told RTE in a video interview, “I believe very strongly that – I’m not the pope, and I’m not in the business of telling him what to do – but in my judgment this needs to be clarified, and there’s only one person who can clarify it at this point.”

The possibility of the Church in any way accepting sexual immorality, whether in the form of divorce, “second marriages” or homosexual acts, he said, must be taken “off the table” for next year’s Synod in a definitive way that only the pope can accomplish.

The cardinal denied that this was an instance of “defying” the pope’s authority, saying that Pope Francis would agree that Church teaching is immutable. But he added that he cannot see how the Church’s teaching is being clarified by the Synod process of protracted discussion and debate. He said that he has heard from lay people that “there’s really just a growing confusion about what the Church really teaches, and we’re not coming to any clarity.

“And the impression now is given that this will now go out to the dioceses and they will express their opinions and the bishops will come and vote on this. But that isn’t the way Church doctrine is formulated. And that’s not the way Church discipline is formulated. The Church is not a democracy,” Burke said.

It is “not helpful that people have this idea now that we’re going to have this broad discussion” on these issues that will be brought to the next session of the Synod in 2015, and put them to a vote, “and somehow this will be the direction.”

“In the end, the Holy Father is the only one who can set the direction, and he will have to pronounce on the matter.”

Cardinal Burke was also careful to explain that the pope does not have the power to change Catholic teaching: “The pope is the first person called to obedience to the word of Christ. And in the case of marriage we have very clearly the word of Christ as it’s recorded in 19th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, and we’re all at the service of that, beginning with the Holy Father.”

He refused to comment on whether this pontificate is “in serious trouble” because of Pope Francis’ silence, but restated his previous assertion that “the matter has to be clarified, clearly and now.”

“The Holy Father has his own judgments in these matters. But I as a cardinal, one of his principal advisors, feel the need to urge that this matter be clarified; without entering into judgments about his pontificate. … But to say that this matter in particular, is so serious we need some strong direction.”

At October’s Synod, Burke was one of the most outspoken of the group of bishops to react strongly against the mid-term document, in which it was suggested that the Church should “accept and value” the homosexual “orientation” and cohabitation, and that such relationships could have positive or valuable “elements.”

Cardinal Burke also expressed misgivings about the suggestion by many, including Pope Francis, that a solution could be found by simplifying and “streamlining” the process of declarations of nullity, whereby a decree is obtained that the first marriage had never been valid. It has been suggested that a decision in such cases simply be left up to the local authorities, perhaps even the parish priest.

But Burke, who is known as one of the Church’s most experienced canonists and who until earlier this month headed the Vatican’s Supreme Tribunal, charged with examining cases of nullity, emphasized the need for caution and dedication to the truth. He said, “It’s a very delicate question to pronounce on the truth of a claim of nullity of marriage.”

“Most of these cases are quite complex and it requires a process by which the truth of the matter can be thoroughly investigated, and the judges involved can reach a moral certitude about the claim of nullity.”

He noted that Cardinal Walter Kasper’s position, that those who are in objectively adulterous relationships should be allowed to receive Communion, “is not new” and that he has held it publicly for at least 40 years, since he was a bishop in Germany.

“I believe he has a false conception of the relationship of faith to the culture.” Burke said he agreed with Kasper that the “culture is very hostile to the stability of marriage” but disagreed with his solution. “His idea is that we go to the culture and embrace it…finding ‘good elements’ in things which are fundamentally wrong.”

“We don’t say that the people are evil. The Church has never said that. … The question is when we go out to meet the culture…[the Church] brings the truth of her teaching to the situation in order call the culture to a transformation.”

But more than this, he said Kasper is “fundamentally wrong in his interpretation of the fathers of the Church,” the early interpreters of scripture upon whose theological understanding Catholicism has always based its teachings. Kasper has claimed in support of his campaign that these Christian teachers of the first few centuries of Christianity were admitting people to second marriages, but Burke said “there’s no evidence to show that” in the records of the Fathers’ writing and acts.

Responding to the frequent assertion that Pope Francis represents a more “pastoral” or “compassionate” approach, at the expense of the more “dogmatic” style of Pope Benedict XVI or John Paul II, Burke responded that in the Catholic Church, doctrine and discipline is not regarded as a “block” or “hindrance” to “mercy,” compassion, or pastoral care.

“They’re seen as a gift to us so that we encounter Christ and are disposed to do what is best for our neighbour, especially to those in most need, and for our world. So you can’t have in the Catholic Church this dichotomy…between doctrine, by which we know Christ, and all that He intends for us in his Church, and that discipline by which we are disposed to follow Him.”

Burke, whose specialty is Canon Law, added that the Church’s discipline “is at the service of the highest realities of our life in Christ.”

Responding to the oft-repeated comment from Pope Francis that the Church should not be “obsessed” with the teaching on sexual morality, Burke said, “I don’t know what the Holy Father means by that,” but that “many lay people have said to me, would to God that they had ever heard in a homily about sexual morality … Obsession? We never hear about these things.”

To RTE’s interviewer, Burke again strongly reiterated that, while the Church never rejects persons with same-sex attractions or with other habitual sexual temptations, “the acts themselves are disordered.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

He made the distinction between valuing people with same-sex attraction based on their inherent human dignity and the sinfulness of homosexual acts, saying that “persons… are not identified by the attraction which they have sexually to persons of the same sex. But are identified in their own human dignity, and that must always be respected in the Church.”

There are, he said, individuals “who are hateful” towards same-sex attracted persons, but “the Church has never assumed that position.”

“But the acts themselves are disordered. All we have to do is look at how God made us. God did not make man for sexual union with man or woman for sexual union with woman. So we can’t suggest that there’s something good in that. It’s simply against nature.

“That people have these attractions and that sometimes they fall in this way, the Church understands and we try to help the individual… But we don’t help somebody by saying, ‘Oh that’s just fine, what you’re doing.’” Instead, the Church works to help people “find a way to live chastely.”

Toward the end of the interview, the cardinal again reiterated his oft-repeated position that Catholic politicians who support legal initiatives, like “gay marriage” or legalized abortion, that are “contrary to the moral law,” cannot be allowed to receive Holy Communion. He cited not only the violation of the Sacrament itself, but the “scandal” that is given, saying that when public figures who are Catholic act in ways contrary to the moral teaching of the Church it “teaches” others to follow suit.

As to his own future, Cardinal Burke said little had changed. “I am a bishop and a cardinal, and my role continues to be the same,” no matter what his assignment. “I will continue to teach and to write. … I have a solemn responsibility to continue to teach and to speak about the Church’s teaching as a bishop and as a cardinal and I will continue in that way.”

¿Por qué América da la bienvenida a los inmigrantes?

Dr. Matthew Spalding

21 / 11 / 2014

0 Comments

Por la naturaleza misma de los principios sobre los cuales fue fundado Estados Unidos —más que cualquier otra nación en la historia— atrae a su territorio a los oprimidos, a los perseguidos y a todos aquellos “que anhelan respirar en libertad”. Admite a aquellos que vienen a este país honradamente, armados con ética de trabajo, en busca de las promesas y las oportunidades del Sueño Americano. ¿Por qué América da la bienvenida a los inmigrantes?

La clave de la singularmente exitosa experiencia inmigratoria de Estados Unidos tienen que ver con una política deliberada y asertiva de asimilación patriótica: Dar la bienvenida a los recién llegados mientras que se insiste en que aprendan y asuman la cultura cívica e instituciones políticas de América, de modo que se forme una nación hecha de muchos pueblos — e pluribus unum. Mientras que hay muchas diferencias de opinión respecto al número total de inmigrantes y del proceso usado para venir a este país, el punto en el que hay un amplio consenso bipartito es que los que vengan aquí deben convertirse en americanos.

El aplastante resultado de esta política de asimilación, a lo largo de la historia de América, ha sido el fortalecimiento de nuestro capital social, una expansión continua de nuestra economía y la renovación constante de nuestro objetivo nacional. Estados Unidos ha sido bueno para los inmigrantes y los inmigrantes han sido buenos para Estados Unidos.

En lugar de asumir que la base de la obligación cívica fuese alguna antigua pretensión de derecho divino o de identidad étnica o religiosa, los fundadores de América empezaron con la igualdad de derechos y el consentimiento. Según se indica en la Declaración de Independencia: “Sostenemos como evidentes estas verdades: que todos los Hombres son creados iguales; que son dotados por su Creador de ciertos Derechos inalienables; que entre éstos están la Vida, la Libertad y la Búsqueda de la Felicidad”. Todos son iguales —no solo los americanos— ya que todos poseen derechos fundamentales que existen por naturaleza.

Se instituye el gobierno legítimo para asegurar estos derechos fundamentales, derivando sus justos poderes del consentimiento de los gobernados. Como dijo Jefferson: “La humanidad no ha nacido con sillas de montar en la espalda, ni tampoco unos cuantos privilegiados con botas y espuelas listos para montarlas legítimamente, por la gracia de Dios” [1]. Esta nueva forma de obligación cívica no crea soberanos y súbditos sino ciudadanos iguales que a su vez gobiernan. El requisito del consentimiento y la práctica del autogobierno crean las condiciones de la ciudadanía.

La “naturalización” es el proceso legal por el que los inmigrantes se convierten en ciudadanos como si fuera por naturaleza. La idea de la naturalización brota de las ideas políticas de la Fundación. Las personas tienen derecho a emigrar de su patria, pero no tienen derecho de inmigrar a este país sin el consentimiento del pueblo americano según lo expresado en las leyes de Estados Unidos.

Cuando el pueblo americano da la bienvenida a un inmigrante, la naturalización en Estados Unidos no funciona como lo hace en otros países. Un extranjero puede inmigrar a Francia o Japón, pero nunca llegar a ser verdaderamente francés o japonés. Sin embargo, un extranjero de cualquier origen étnico o racial puede emigrar a Estados Unidos y llegar a ser, en toda la extensión de la palabra, un americano. Semejante transformación es posible en América porque la apertura misma de libertad a diversas procedencias y diferencias de opinión, incluyendo opiniones religiosas, emana de principios políticos compartidos Son estos principios los que hacen posible ante todo el gobierno libre y estos principios son los que los inmigrantes deben aceptar.

Cuando se fundó Estados Unidos, esta teoría de la ciudadanía americana era nueva en el mundo. Aún sigue teniendo implicaciones revolucionarias: Todos los ciudadanos, por nacimiento al igual que por naturalización, poseen libertad civil y religiosa por un inherente derecho natural. Todo lo que se les pide es que se comporten como buenos ciudadanos y sean fieles al gobierno constitucional americano.

Los Fundadores esperaban que los mejores inmigrantes aumentaran el capital moral del país creciente, trayendo consigo las cualidades necesarias para el funcionamiento del gobierno libre. América prometía ventajas “para aquellos decididos a estar sobrios, ser trabajadores y miembros virtuosos de la Sociedad”, decía Washington en 1788 a un holandés con el que mantenía correspondencia. Y agregaba: “No hace falta disimular que el saber que estas son las características generales de tus compatriotas sería una razón primordial para considerar su llegada como una valiosa adquisición para nuestros incipientes asentamientos” [2].

Los Fundadores no temían que los inmigrantes, por sí mismos, subvirtieran la república americana. Mientras que la sensatez y la virtud persistieran sólidamente entre los americanos, el proceso democrático y el ascendiente más amplio de la sociedad atenuarían la posible influencia de principios extranjeros en la opinión doméstica. Fisher Ames de Virginia apuntaba que una vez que “los hábitos de los inmigrantes al igual que sus intereses se integren a los nuestros, podríamos dejar que los lleven en el corazón o que renuncien a los importados prejuicios y locuras de su elección. La opinión pública debe evitar el peligro de que [esos prejuicios] se propaguen entre nuestros propios ciudadanos, si hemos de dejar que el error y el prejuicio prevalezcan o fracasen ante la verdad y la libertad de indagación”.

Los Fundadores entendían que la inmigración traería la necesaria –y deseable– diversidad de creencias a Estados Unidos. Pero también reconocieron que hacía falta una cierta uniformidad de opinión sobre América y los principios fundamentales de la Revolución. Como dijo Hamilton, nuestra política en materia de inmigración debe esmerarse “por posibilitar que los extranjeros se libren de sus vínculos foráneos y adquieran vínculos americanos; que aprendan los principios y se imbuyan del espíritu de nuestro gobierno; y que den entrada, al menos, a la filosofía de sentir un verdadero interés por nuestros asuntos”.

La diversidad es ley de vida, pero la unidad de principios fundacionales es necesaria para el proceso de asimilación, convirtiendo el pluribus en unum. Sin embargo, como Estados Unidos está cimentada en los principios de autogobierno republicano, no puede forzar a sus ciudadanos a ser libres. Los inmigrantes, al igual que todos los americanos, deberán en ultimadamente adquirir por sí mismos las cualidades y convicciones fundamentales del republicanismo. Ellos deben decidir libremente convertirse en ilustrados amigos de la libertad y adeptos del experimento común americano de autogobierno.

A través de sus leyes, el pueblo de Estados Unidos da su consentimiento para que los inmigrantes formen parte del país, bajo ciertas condiciones, como residentes y en muchos casos, como compatriotas. El Congreso tiene la responsabilidad constitucional tanto “para establecer una regla uniforme de naturalización” que ponga los términos y las condiciones de inmigración y ciudadanía como para asegurar la imparcialidad y la integridad del proceso legal por el que los inmigrantes entran al país, establecen su residencia y logran la ciudadanía. Las leyes de naturalización deben ser equitativas y deben hacerse cumplir uniformemente, tanto por el beneficio de los actuales ciudadanos de Estados Unidos como por consideración a los que obedecen la ley y siguen las reglas impuestas para entrar en el país.

“Cada especie de gobierno tiene sus principios específicos” observaba Jefferson. “Los nuestros, quizá, son más peculiares que los de cualquier otro en el universo” [4]. Por lo tanto, debemos tener ocuparnos de que ciudadanos tengan la oportunidad de aprender estos principios.

Para los americanos nacidos en este país, la educación cívica se da sobre todo en casa y a través de la enseñanza escolar. Sin la ventaja natural de haber nacido y crecido en este país, como asunto de política pública, se debería educar a los inmigrantes específicamente en la historia, las ideas políticas y las instituciones de Estados Unidos.

Los inmigrantes deberán saber quiénes somos y en lo que creemos como pueblo y lo que representamos como nación. Deberán conocer los principios de la Declaración de la Independencia : Que el gobierno legítimo se funda en la protección de los derechos naturales iguales y en el consentimiento de los gobernados. Deberán entender y apreciar cómo la Constitución y nuestras instituciones de gobierno limitado funcionan para proteger la libertad y el Estado de Derecho.

Es a través de sus vecinos, amigos y compatriotas –en comunidades locales, iglesias, escuelas y organizaciones privadas, por no mencionar el lugar de trabajo y el mercado– donde los inmigrantes absorben los hábitos, las costumbres y el espíritu de los americanos, fortaleciendo sus virtudes, fomentando su ética de trabajo y creando sus responsabilidades sociales. La educación cívica, en particular, funciona mientras que los inmigrantes observan y luego participan en la vida política americana, viendo la igualdad ante la ley y el consentimiento de los gobernados aplicado a la política local, estatal y nacional. De esta forma, como Washington predijo, los inmigrantes “asimilan nuestras costumbres, reglas y leyes: en resumidas cuentas, pronto se convierten en un pueblo” [5].

“Ciudadanos por nacimiento o por elección de una patria común, esta tierra tiene derecho a que todos vuestros afectos se concentren en ella”, según nos recuerda Washington [6]. La palabra “ciudadano”, que proviene del latín civis, se asocia con la afiliación y la participación en un orden político específico. Por definición, la ciudadanía americana está limitada a Estados Unidos. Por tanto, ser ciudadano de Estados Unidos por nacimiento o por naturalización necesariamente implica lealtad de primer orden al orden político americano.

Lealtad es la obligación que tienen los ciudadanos con el país que los protege y asegura sus libertades individuales y derechos fundamentales. En Estados Unidos, la lealtad ciudadana proviene de una profunda adhesión y deferencia, no a líderes políticos o al Estado, sino a la Constitución y al Estado de Derecho.

Estados Unidos debe aplicar la asimilación para asegurarse las bendiciones de la libertad y pasarlas de generación en generación. Damos la bienvenida a los inmigrantes por las contribuciones que hacen y porque aceptan la lealtad inherente a la ciudadanía americana.

A fin de cuentas, una política asertiva para integrar a los inmigrantes debe verse como parte de un renacer aún mayor de nuestros principios, una reafirmación de lo quenosotros sostenemos como evidente. Después de todo, no es tanto el requisito técnico de ratificar una colección singular de afirmaciones históricas lo que ata a los inmigrantes a América sino nuestro reconocimiento común de las trascendentales verdades que nos unen a todos y a través de tiempo a los patriotas de 1776.

La versión en inglés de este artículo se publicó en Heritage.org.

Hirsi Ali: Women In US Take Rights For Granted
11.21.2014

News

Truth Revolt

7
5 Share on print
Writing in TIME for the pre-Thanksgiving "What I'm Thankful For" collection, Somali-born women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali explained that she is “grateful for the things that we take for granted as women living in democratic countries such as the US” and contrasted the freedoms of Western democracies with what is common-place where women and girls “have nowhere to turn.” Hirsi Ali acknowledges that "violence against women is universal" but is thankful for laws in the US that protect women. In other places, the governments are far less kind:
Now imagine if by law:
You need permission from a male guardian to step out of your home
You can’t drive
You have to wear a veil and be fully covered
You are forced into a marriage and you may be as young as 9 years old (the law in Iran and Saudi Arabia)
You receive a divorce but leave with no assets
You are subjected to polygamy
You are subjected to female genital mutilation
You inherit half of what your brother inherits
Your testimony in court is worth half of that of your rapist
Your murder is a lesser crime because you were killed in the name of honor
It is not only the state but a whole society that has declared war on you because you are a woman. Women who are fighting in Saudi Arabia for the right to drive are:
Mocked in the press
Condemned by the clerics
Ridiculed by male drivers
Women who resist their rapists are imprisoned, tortured, and put to death like Reyhanneh Jabbari in Iran
Fathers sell their daughters to the highest bidder
Girls are denied an education. The brave ones like Malala who stand up for their rights are shot.
As a woman or girl you face hostility in the press, the court system, schools, the marketplace, even home and for no other reason than you were born female.
Read in full HERE.

Why is Europe pressuring Latin American countries to allow abortion?...Los politicos nos mienten y no pasa NADA!...A Christian Vision to Homosexuality.

2014-11-20T08:10:00.000-06:00

Universal Periodic Review: Europeans pressuring Latin Americans to allow abortion

Abortion , El Salvador , United Nations

El Salvador recently had its turn to receive recommendations from other countries as part of the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which is a mechanism that is supposed to engender positive peer pressure toward meeting human rights obligations as set out in international treaties.

Twelve countries used this platform to pressure El Salvador to change its laws on abortion, removing protections from unborn children and expanding the grounds for legal abortion.

However, the basis of the UPR is human rights treaties, none of which contains or can be rightly interpreted as containing a right to abortion.

The UPR is now in its second round, which concludes in 2016. However, a look at the recommendations mentioning abortion reveals a disturbing trend:

As this chart shows, the vast majority of recommendations tend toward expanding abortion, both by changing the laws and by liberally interpreting them to make abortion more acceptable and frequent.

However, very few recommendations have been made (and none at all in the first review cycle) to address the persistent problem of sex-selective abortion in countries like India and China.

Furthermore, the pressure is highly concentrated by region:

The vast majority of recommendations to expand abortion and strip away protections for the unborn come from Europe and are targeted at Latin America. The Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Finland) are particularly persistent, with Norway alone accounting for 13% of abortion pressure in the UPR system thus far.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Like the treaty monitoring bodies that have pressured countries to legalize abortion through a faulty interpretation of human rights treaties, the UPR is becoming a pro-abortion echo chamber and risks losing its credibility as a platform for upholding a valid concept of human rights.

Reprinted with permission from Turtle Bay and Beyond.

La mentira como arma política

Dr. Juan Ramón Rallo

17 / 11 / 2014

0 Comments

Foto: Free Republic

Jonathan Gruber, profesor de Economía en MIT y principal arquitecto de Obamacare, ha terminado reconociendo lo que muchos sospechaban: la formalidad democrática esconde una tiranía tecnocrática que no duda en socavar las libertades individuales en el altar de la ingeniería social.

Atiendan si no a sus recientesdeclaraciones:

La ley [Obamacare] se escribió de una manera enrevesada para evitar que la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO) denominara el mandato individual como impuesto. Si la CBO hubiese calificado al mandato de impuesto, la ley habría muerto. Así que la escribimos de tal forma que lo evitáramos (…) La falta de transparencia es una gran ventaja política. Y Obamacare es algo que tenía que ser aprobado, y esa falta de transparencia fue vital para que la ley resultara aprobada debido a –llámelo como quiera– la estupidez del votante americano.

Quedémonos, sin embargo, con la frase central de su perorata: “La falta de transparencia es una gran ventaja política”. Es decir, la mentira –o la ocultación de la verdad– es una esencial arma política. Los españoles somos bien conscientes de ello: Mariano Rajoy llegó al poder con la promesa de que bajaría los impuestos para así poder convertirse en el presidente del Gobierno que más los ha subido en toda nuestra historia. Ahora mismo, el nuevo partido político “Podemos” está dulcificando y diluyendo su discurso con exactamente el mismo propósito: no porque se hayan transformado súbitamente en ponderados centristas que apenas aspiren a barrer los escombros del régimen del 78, sino porque aspiran a tomar el cielo por asalto. Y su cielo es el poder absoluto.

A la postre, el poder, entendido como dominación política, se basa en última instancia en el dócil sometimiento de los ciudadanos. Ya lo proclamó Étienne de La Boétie en su Discurso sobre la servidumbre voluntaria, o el propio David Hume al cuando afirmó:

Como la fuerza está siempre del lado de los gobernados, quienes gobiernan no pueden apoyarse más que en la opinión. La opinión es, por tanto, el único fundamento del Gobierno.

La clave para alcanzar y retener el poder es controlar la opinión pública, a saber, la clave del poder es la propaganda. No hay más. Por eso Münzenberg y Goebbels fueron piezas clave en la construcción de la hegemonía política de sus respectivos totalitarismos y por eso las campañas electorales, los debates parlamentarios o las tertulias televisivas devienen meros espectáculos circenses vacíos de contenido cuya única misión es embaucar al votante para ulteriormente defraudarlo y tiranizarlo.

Ésa es la perversa e inexorable lógica de un modelo de relaciones sociales basado en la coacción, en la dominación de unas voluntades sobre otras: la necesidad de un continuado embuste estratégico para imponer a los demás la propia agenda política recortando sus libertades. Sólo la generación de un masivo Síndrome de Estocolmo que legitime el ilegítimo uso unilateral de la violencia permite que los siervos justifiquen su servidumbre y no se rebelen contra su carcelero.

En este sentido, la tarea del liberalismo (definido en su sentido europeo) resulta doblemente complicada: no sólo se trata de persuadir a la gente, sino de persuadirla sin mentiras y sin ocultarle la verdad. El liberalismo no aspira a tomar el poder por el poder: al contrario, el liberalismo aspira a devolver el poder a la sociedad, a los individuos. Por eso al liberalismo no le vale un apoyo popular ciego o inconsciente: si la gente aupara al poder a un partido liberal sin que, al tiempo, esa misma gente deseara mayoritariamente romper con las cadenas estatales, el fracaso sería estrepitoso: no se puede obligar a la gente a ser libre y a vivir fuera de la cárcel estatal cuando mora confortablemente en ella.

A diferencia de los partidos políticos al uso, el liberalismo ni puede ni pretende transformar la sociedad de arriba abajo, sino cambiarla de abajo arriba: no mediante la maquiavélica mentira sino mediante la sincera persuasión de los ciudadanos. Por eso la batalla liberal de las ideas es lenta y plagada de fracasos, mientras que la reconstrucción de la hegemonía estatal es persistentemente adaptativa: unos luchan contra el statu quo con un discurso impopular mientras que los otros consolidan el statu quo valiéndose en cada momento de las mentiras que resulten más digeribles.

Como en tantos otros asuntos, resulta difícil explicarlo mejor que Ludwig von Mises:

La aportación más profunda y fundamental del pensamiento liberal es que son las ideas las que constituyen la base de todo el edificio de la cooperación humana y que ningún orden social puede ser verdaderamente duradero cuando toma como base ideas falsas y erróneas. Nada puede sustituir a una ideología que promueve el valor de la vida humana defendiendo la cooperación social: en especial, las mentiras –llamémosles tacticismo, diplomacia o compromiso– no pueden sustituir a esa ideología. Si los hombres no están dispuestos a hacer voluntariamente lo que deben hacer para mantener la sociedad y el bien común, nadie podrá recolocarlos en el buen camino mediante las más variadas estratagemas y artificios. Si se equivocan y extravían, uno debe esforzarse por convencerlos y sacarlos del error. Pero si se empeñan en persistir en el error, entonces nada puede evitar la catástrofe. Todos los trucos y las mentiras de los políticos demagogos serán acaso útiles para promover la causa de aquellos que, de buena o mala fe, pugnan por destruir la sociedad. Pero la causa del progreso social, la causa del desarrollo e intensificación de los lazos sociales, no puede ser defendida mediante mentiras y demagogias. Ningún poder terrenal, ninguna astuta estratagema y ninguna conveniente mentira triunfarán a la hora de lograr que la humanidad acepte unas ideas a las que no reconoce validez y que incluso desprecia abiertamente.

A Christian vision of Homosexuality

Christian Anthropology and Homosexuality
by Cardinal Dionigi Teltamanzi

Introduction

The problem of homosexuality seems complex, as does any problem concerning man and concerning him in depth: many different and difficult aspects are connected with it. This complexity seems to reveal that unique richness which marks the human person, who often is correctly described as a "mystery". On the other hand, it is precisely this very "mystery" that spurs the reflection on homosexuality towards a reading and interpretation marked by simplicity, within a deeply unified vision. And it is again the unique richness of the human person that demands such a unified vision: the wealth proper to the person is in fact not chaotic but intrinsically ordered.

Thus, for an adequate and fruitful reflection on homosexuality it is a question of keeping it within an anthropological context, more precisely, within the context of Christian anthropology, which interprets man in the light of God's Word and right reason: sub luce Evangelii et humanae experientiae, as the Second Vatican Council expressed it (Gaudium et spes, n. 46). For such an interpretation of man, we must go back "to the beginning", i.e., to God's creative act: this is what Jesus Christ did with regard to the indissolubility of marriage, offering a valid paradigmatic principle for the whole truth about man, and so for human sexuality. Indeed, sexuality is human precisely because it belongs to and is for the person; it is not an independent reality, as though hypostatized, but is related to the person. Another of Christ's sayings is enlightening: man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man (cf. Mk 2:27). It is a saying that also sheds light on the relationship between sexuality and the person: the person was not made for sexuality, but sexuality for the person.

1. The primacy of the person over sexuality

The general assertion just made needs more careful analysis: in all questions regarding human sexuality- thus homosexuality as well-the primacy of the person over his sexuality, and concretely, over the dimensions and forms, requirements and expressions of this same sexuality, must never be forgotten but always positively affirmed.

Going back "to the beginning" is highly significant here, because the text of Genesis is certainly important for affirming the primacy of the person over sexuality: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gn 1:27). The biblical text certainly states that sexuality is not something extrinsic to the person or a later addition, but is included in one and the same act of God the Creator: it belongs intrinsically and constitutively to the person, more on the lines of "having" than of "being". There is no person, in fact, who is not a sexual person. In this sense, as we read in Educational Guidance in Human Love: Outlines for Sex Education, "Sexuality is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love.... Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions" (Congregation for Catholic Education, 1 November 1983, nn. 4, 5).

On the other hand, we cannot deny that the affirmation of man as imago Dei is prior to that of man as "male and female". As it has been said, this priority is not "temporal" but "axiological". The person created by God, while intrinsically and constitutively including sexuality, is not fully defined by it. Continue reading

Population Control : Sterilization Factory!...en Mexico será que todo es Corrupto?...to too many the Government gives us Rights...do they?

2014-11-19T13:51:00.000-06:00

ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

Population Research Institute

POPULATION CONTROLTue Nov 18, 2014 - 12:19 pm EST

A sterilization story the population controllers do NOT want you to read

Forced Sterilization , India , Population Control

You’re about to read the story of eleven million women and men who were forcibly sterilized in India. And be forewarned: This is very unpleasant reading!

Entire villages rounded up

In the Indian village of Uttawar, for instance, residents were roused from their sleep by loudspeakers and ordered to gather on the main road. There, police forcibly seized all males age 15 and over and herded them to sterilization centers.

The horror that happened in the village of Uttawar is just one example of how population controllers inflicted forced sterilization. When the forced mutilations were over, eleven million men and women had been sterilized against their will.

Assembly line sterilization

These millions of men and women were forcibly sterilized in conditions that were appallingly unsanitary. No follow-up care was offered. Many died from subsequent infections. 1,800 families filed wrongful death suits, but that number is thought to merely scratch the surface of the number of deaths inflicted as a result of forced, unhygenic sterilization.

Are you asking yourself these two questions? . . .

“Forced sterilization in India was a one-time tragedy, wasn’t it? It couldn’t happen again, could it?”

Wrong! Forced sterilization has happened again since this nightmare in India. It’s happened in Peru . . . Vietnam . . . and Indonesia. And it’s happening right now – on a truly massive scale – in China!

In fact, India’s coercive system of sterilization quotas and targets creates a climate ripe for human rights abuses in what amounts to mass sterilization camps. Just this November, Chhattisgarh, India, saw their own version of these abuses as 15 women died in one such mass sterilization camp under what appears to be the pressure of government quotas.

With officials seemingly obsessed with population control, health and sanitation take a secondary role to the priority of meeting sterilization targets. This abuse of power cannot go on.

Reprinted with permission from Population Research Institute.

Corrupción: En México lo ha podrido todo

Carlos Alberto Montaner

19 / 11 / 2014

0 Comments

El terrible episodio de los 43 estudiantes de la Escuela Normal de Ayotzinapa, asesinados por narcotraficantes, supuestamente comisionados por la Policía para cometer ese crimen, demuestra que México exhibe el síntoma más grave de los Estados fallidos: la pérdida casi total del principio de autoridad.

Las repúblicas surgidas a fines del siglo XVIII –con Estados Unidos a la cabeza–, seguidas en el XIX por las repúblicas latinoamericanas, fueron organizadas en torno a tres principios esenciales:

Todos los ciudadanos están sujetos al imperio de la ley y la ley no puede hacer distinciones.
Ningún crimen juzgado y condenado debe quedar impune.
El Estado, porque así lo estipula la ley, se reserva el monopolio de la violencia y la coacción, por usar un concepto creado por el sociólogo alemán Max Weber.

Eso quiere decir que nadie puede, por su cuenta y riesgo, maltratar, castigar ni, mucho menos, matar a otra persona. Esas ingratas tareas nada más puede realizarlas el Estado, y sólo y siempre de acuerdo con leyes previamente aprobadas e inscritas en códigos específicos.

En México, y en muchos países latinoamericanos, esos tres principios fundamentales que sostienen la República han sido sistemáticamente pulverizados.

En México, desde hace muchas décadas, la cúpula dirigente violó todas las leyes, casi siempre para enriquecerse, y ese comportamiento fue permeando todos los estamentos del Estado hasta generar una atmósfera de corrupción casi total.

Quien tenía un cargo lo utilizaba para cobrar comisiones por todo, allí llamadas mordidas. Y quienes no tenían cargos colaboraban con la corrupción pagando dócilmente esas mordidas, por ejemplo a la Policía que se ocupaba del tráfico.

Una vez que el narcotráfico se convirtió en una gigantesca operación económica, con bandas armadas que se disputaban los territorios para vender las drogas, resultó natural que quienes desde el Estado cometían otros delitos se hicieran cómplices de los cárteles para ganar más dinero. Los funcionarios corruptos brindaban protección a los narcos y los narcos daban dinero o prestaban servicios a los funcionarios corruptos.

El asesinato de los 43 estudiantes es una muestra de esa relación perversa. Los estudiantes molestaban a los funcionarios corruptos, en este caso miembros del PRD, y los narcos los ejecutaron y luego incineraron los cadáveres, como ocurre en el mundo de las pandillas.

¿Qué se puede hacer? No es nada sencillo. Hay que volver a los principios: todos tienen que colocarse bajo el imperio de la ley, no puede haber impunidad ante el delito y el Estado debe recuperar el monopolio de la violencia y la coacción.

Fácil de decir y difícil de llevar a cabo; pero o lo intentan o en algún punto la República será devorada por alguna aventura autoritaria. Se desplomará.

School Handout: 'The Government Gives Us Rights'

"[G]ive your loyalty to the U.S. government."

11.19.2014

News

Trey Sanchez

A well-circulated school handout is teaching children that rights are given to citizens not by their Creator, but by their government.

The author of the handout, Phyllis Naegeli, writes educational (used loosely) materials for elementary school-aged children. Her lesson Being a Good Citizen, found onEdHelper.com, states the following:

When you are a citizen you have rights. Rights are special privileges the government gives you. In our country, you have free speech. You are also given the right to choose a religion.
Because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.

The writing, which dates back to at least 2009, caused much controversy then, so much so that Naegeli came to her own defense in a concerned forum group discussion that year. Here's what she said:

From what I have discovered an article I wrote for edhelper.com because [sic] quite a point of controversy on your forum the other day. I am being accused of spreading left-wing propaganda, being a Pelosi relative, and other such incorrect titles. I am a Christian and I own up to mistakes that I make. I made a mistake in these articles by saying the government gives us rights. The government is to protect the rights we are given by God. For that I apologize and ask for forgiveness. I am far from being left wing. I chose the incorrect words to try to simply describe what being a citizen is. I never intended for anyone to be offended by this or to spread some incorrect information to children. I home educated all of my children and have been very careful about what they were taught. I have taught them to be loyal citizens of our wonderful country.

Naegeli asked EdHelper.com to revise her writing to say the following:

As a citizen you have special privileges called rights. The government protects those rights. In our country, you have free speech. You are also given the right to choose a religion.
Because the government protects our rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.

Naegeli states that she no longer writes for the teachers' resource website and does not own the writing she produced for them. She advises anyone who takes issue with her work to contact them directly to request changes.

But it may be too late because the damage has been done. Despite the revisions, the original work is still being distributed. Fast forward five years to November 2014 -- Andrew Washburn posts a picture to Facebook of Naegeli's original Being A Good Citizen given to his 8-year-old daughter at school. Washburn sarcastically writes, "I just feel so grateful to live in a country whose leaders have generously granted my rights, and even more grateful that they make sure my children know where those rights came from!"

There are also other lessons written by Naegeli that can be found online. One is titled Our Living Constitution in which she writes, "Our Constitution is alive! That's because it can be changed."

Another is United States Citizenship where she states, "As a citizen, you give your loyalty to the U.S. government."

Be aware...Catholic teaching has not changed over Gay Marriage issue....America Must stand up for Hong Kong's Democracy....Cristóbal Colón un icono americano!

2014-10-14T08:58:00.000-05:00

Here's why Church teaching on 'gay marriage' did not change today

St. Peter's Basilica. Credit: David Uebbing/CNA.

By Mary Rezac

Vatican City, Oct 13, 2014 / 04:59 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Catholic blogosphere exploded Monday after the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops released a document summarizing last week’s discussion.

But while the relatio post disceptationem, which means “Report After Debate,” has been fodder for sensational headlines claiming a major shift in doctrine, the report is only a beginning, working document of the Church.

The relatio, as it’s called, simply takes the topics and comments made during the last week of the synod and attempts to summarize and organize them into categories. The official teaching document of the synod will not be released until well after the Ordinary Synod of Bishops, which is scheduled to take place next fall. Typically after an ordinary synod, the Pope will release an Apostolic Exhortation regarding his conclusions after the meeting of bishops.

Still, although the relatio has “working document” status, it has received mixed reactions from several bishops present at the synod.

Some were quick to calm the storm of speculations that the Church is changing its teachings regarding homosexual marriage. Bishop Eugène Cyrille Houndekon of Abomey, Africa, said the language in the relatio simply refers to the Church’s openness to everyone, no matter where they are in their journey of faith.

“The Church open its doors to all people – their weaknesses, their defects – and try to help them, everybody, those who have stronger virtues to deepen that, and those who have weaknesses to try…to overcome that,” he told CNA.

The bishop was referring to the document’s position on persons with same-sex attraction and their role in the church, which Cardinal Peter Erdo quoted in his opening speech to the Synod Fathers Monday morning, saying:

“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

Other bishops and cardinals are concerned with a lack of clarity in the document. In an interview with CNA, Cardinal Burke said the relatio as it stands uses “confused” and “even erroneous” language, and he hopes the final document from this synod is much clearer.

“There’s a confusion with the regard to the question of people who are living in de-facto unions, or people who are attracted to the same sex are living together, and an inadequate explanation of the relationship of the church to the person,” he said.

“I certainly hope that this document will be set aside completely, and there will be an effort made to present the church’s true teaching and pastoral practice, the two of which always go together in a new document.”

President of the Polish bishops’ conference Archbishop Stanislaw Gadecki also voiced concerns, and said he hopes the final synod will discuss support of families as a whole rather than only studying special cases or exceptions to the traditional family.

“Speak about the practical exceptions, but we also need to present the truth,” Archbishop Gadecki said in an interview with Vatican Radio.

The relatio was divided into three categories that addressed the context and challenges to the family, the Gospel of the Family and how it fits into salvation, and pastoral perspectives regarding irregular unions. Left open for more discussion was also whether divorced and remarried Catholics could receive Communion.

The document will serve as a starting point for further discussion and reflection this next week.

“The reflections put forward, the fruit of the Synodal dialog that took place in great freedom and a spirit of reciprocal listening, are intended to raise questions and indicate perspectives that will have to be matured and made clearer by the reflection of the local Churches in the year that separates us from the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of bishops planned for October 2015,” the document reads.

“These are not decisions that have been made nor simply points of view. All the same the collegial path of the bishops and the involvement of all God’s people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit will lead us to find roads of truth and mercy for all. This is the wish that from the beginning of our work Pope Francis has extended to us, inviting us to the courage of the faith and the humble and honest welcome of the truth in charity.”

The full text of the document can be found at:http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html

Tags: Gay Marriage, Marriage, Synod, Synod on the Family

Why America Must Stand Up for Hong Kong's Democracy Movement

By Mike Gonzalez

Loath to become the world’s policeman, the Obama administration has turned instead into its fireman. Hither and thither, the administration runs to different corners of the world trying to put out fires—today Central America, tomorrow Jerusalem, next week Syria. Such an approach may rack up air miles for the Secretary of State, but clearly, it’s no substitute for a preventive blueprint that safeguards our national interest.

As it happens, one part of the world experiencing a mini–flare up—Hong Kong—affords us an opportunity to pursue a long-term strategy pertaining to a much larger actor: China. Our foreign-policy challenges would ease considerably if China became a normal, status-quo country with elections, free markets and checks and balances that its leaders could use to manage internal tensions.

Allowing the 7.1 million people of Hong Kong to practice real democracy would let the authorities in Beijing see up close that there’s nothing to fear from a sovereign people. Over time, familiarity with democratic practices in this one Chinese city would help China’s leaders acquire for themselves the frame of mind needed to begin to introduce universal suffrage on the mainland itself.

This is what we see with economic development. China’s experiment with capitalism and free markets since the death of Mao in 1979 has been vastly helped by the fact that its businessmen are able to learn best business practices from Hong Kong, much to the benefit of 1.3 billion Chinese on the mainland. Political culture, like business culture, can be learned through observation and close proximity.

Unfortunately, China has shown itself in no mood to countenance the legitimate demands of the people of Hong Kong to be allowed to practice democracy in electing their Chief Executive and their miniparliament, the Legislative Council. Its response to a referendum last month, which called for universal suffrage, was to denounce it as illegal, even as some 800,000 of the city’s registered voters voted for democracy. And when half a million marched on July 1 to demand democracy, China had 500 of them and five of the protest’s leaders arrested. Most ludicrously, the leaders were clapped into prison for “walking too slowly.”

This makes a mockery of the pillars of Hong Kong’s success story: the rule of law and due process. As with China’s ham-fisted attempts to silence independent media outlets over the past few years, China is now putting at risk not just its own political evolution but Hong Kong’s economic success.

The Success of a Barren Rock

Journalists often write that Britain “returned” sovereignty of Hong Kong to China in 1997 after 151 years of colonial rule. In fact, that misstates the history. There was no “there, there” in Hong Kong when Britain grabbed the area at the mouth of the Pearl River in the Opium War of 1839-42. The city that eventually was built around this deep natural harbor became an economic miracle, the fortuitous combination of three factors: British rule of law and sense of fair play, the industry of the Chinese who populated the area and the craftiness of colonial administrators sent by London who remained steadfastly free-market, even when Britain turned socialist after World War II.

The Index of Economic Freedom published each year by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal has always identified Hong Kong the world’s freest economy. Anyone who has visited this capitalist theme park would know why. The city levies almost no trade tariffs, is completely open to international trade and has a small, efficient government, a professional, honest civil service and a light regulatory touch. It is easy to see why Hong Kong’s GDP per capita of $36,796 is one of the highest in the world and four times higher than the GDP per capita of the country to which the city has belonged since 1997—China. The border between Hong Kong and communist China served for many years as a stark reminder of the laws of economics: on one side lay impoverished, oppressed China and on the other, enlightened, prosperous Hong Kong.

On July 1, 1997, London handed sovereignty of the territory to China. Britain could hold on to Hong Kong no longer, because while China had ceded the island in perpetuity in the nineteenth century, the adjacent Kowloon peninsula had only been leased for ninety-nine years on 1898, and Hong Kong could not be split. The Chinese leader who took over China in 1979, Deng Xiaoping, clearly was cut from a different cloth from the man he replaced, Mao Zedong, as he wasted little time introducing some free-market reforms. Deng was able to convince Margaret Thatcher, the then-prime minister of the UK, to turn over Hong Kong in 1997, promising that he would implement a “One Country, Two Systems” policy.

In essence, this meant that while China’s 1.3 billion people would continue to have their most basic freedoms restricted under rule by the Chinese Communist Party, Beijing pledged that Hong Kong would continue to enjoy most of the same rights as the world’s liberal democracies. Specifically, in the Joint Declaration signed by both China and the UK, a binding international treaty filed at the United Nations, Beijing promised that,

Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law.

Moreover, China also promised that from 2017 on, Hong Kongers may elect their Chief Executive and all members of the Legislative Council. China may be going back on these promises now by allowing Hong Kongers to vote for their leaders, but only for the handful of those picked by Beijing.

China is backsliding on more than its electoral promises. Its attempts to quash the last fully independent media outlets in Hong Kong, those owned by publisher Jimmy Lai, a critic of the Communist Party, render pledges to respect freedom of speech, press or private property meaningless.

America has a strong national-security interest in making sure that Hong Kong remains the free port that it is. According to the State Department, trade with Hong Kong produced the largest of any U.S. trade surpluses in 2012, owing largely to high-tech products. Some 1,400 U.S. firms have offices in Hong Kong; close to 900 of them are regional headquarters or offices. And even after the handover, Hong Kong remains a mecca for entrepreneurial Americans: some 60,000 American expats call Hong Kong home.

It should hardly surprise that early on, Congress established what U.S. policy toward Hong Kong would be by passing the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act in 1992. It said,

Support for democratization is a fundamental principle of United States foreign policy. As such, it naturally applies to United States policy toward Hong Kong. This will remain equally true after June 30, 1997.

The human rights of the people of Hong Kong are of great importance to the United States and are directly relevant to U.S. interests in Hong Kong. A fully successful transition in the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong must safeguard human rights in and of themselves. Human rights also serve as a basis for Hong Kong's continued economic prosperity. Keep reading

Cristóbal Colón: ¿Icono de Estados Unidos?

Julia Shaw

13 / 10 / 2014

0 Comments

El 12 de octubre, Cristóbal Colón descubrió América en 1492 y por eso, este día se conmemora en el continente americano y España. Pero en realidad, para Estados Unidos el Día de Colón es un feriado algo raro. No se conmemora a un presidente o a un gran estadista americano. El gran navegante genovés descubrió América, pero no descubrió ni fundó Estados Unidos.

A medida que se acercaba el Día de Colón de este año, el presidente Obama trató de cambiar sutilmente el enfoque de la fiesta. En vez de celebrar simplemente a un audaz explorador, quería también centrar la atención en los “pueblos indígenas que habían habitado el hemisferio occidental durante milenios”. Su proclamación presidencial invitaba a los americanos a “reflexionar sobre la trágica carga que las comunidades tribales soportaron en los años que siguieron [a la llegada de Colón]…[y a] conmemorar las muchas contribuciones que estas han realizado a la experiencia americana y a que continuemos fortaleciendo los lazos que nos unen a día de hoy”.

Pero esto pasa por alto el significado de por qué Estados Unidos celebra el Día de Colón.

Leon Kass, Amy Kass y Diana Schuab proporcionan una rigurosa visión general de la historia y la tradición del Día de Colón en su plan de estudios What So Proudly We Hail (Lo que con tanto orgullo proclamamos). De hecho, Colón fue una figura importante para muchas comunidades de inmigrantes. Y más aún, Cristóbal Colón ha sido desde hace mucho tiempo un icono americano.

“La asociación entre Colón y Estados Unidos continuó prosperando a medida que los colonos revolucionarios buscaban distanciarse de Inglaterra”, observa el plan de estudios. “En Colón hallaron a un héroe que se había atrevido a cruzar un mar desconocido, dejando atrás el Viejo Continente para dar un nuevo comienzo en una tierra virgen, como estaban intentando hacer muchos de ellos”. Hacia finales del siglo XVIII, los americanos veían a Colón como “una mítica figura fundacional”. Y en el siglo XIX, era visto como “arquetipo del ideal americano: atrevido, aventurero, innovador”.

Nadie recoge esto mejor que Ronald Reagan. En una proclamación presidencial de 1988, Reagan conmemora a Colón por su espíritu: “Era un soñador, un hombre de gran visión y coraje, un hombre lleno de esperanza por el futuro y con la determinación de soltar amarras hacia lo desconocido y navegar por un mar inexplorado buscando la satisfacción de descubrir lo que allí hubiese. Mézclenlo todo y se podría decir que Colón fue el inventor del Sueño Americano”.

Lejos de ser un día para recordar nuestras divisiones o para hacer hincapié en nuestros errores pasados, el Día de Colón es un día para celebrar un Sueño Americano que valora la diversidad, sí, pero que también recompensa a los atrevidos y audaces. O como dijo Reagan, “no sólo [por ser] un intrépido explorador sino por los sueños y oportunidades que trajeron a tantos hasta aquí después de él”.

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

El lobby LGBT no es lo que de verdad quieren los Homosexuales....que hay detras de todo esto? ...Be brave, commit to your partner and be Loyal!

2014-04-15T11:23:00.000-05:00

"Soy francesa, soy homosexual, la mayoría de los homosexuales no queremos el matrimonio ni la adopción"

"La pareja homosexual es diferente: no podemos dar origen a la vida"

"Los niños tienen derecho a un padre y a una madre"

"Es necesario dar a los niños la imagen más natural"

"No podemos pedir igualdad para situaciones que son diferentes"

"No hemos votado por el lobby LGBT para que nos represente"

I. FERNÁNDEZ | MIÉ, 16/01/2013 - 21:08

Archivado en:

Nathalie de Williencourt es una de las fundadoras de Homovox, una de las mayores asociaciones gays en Francia.

REDACCIÓN HO / ACI.- A diferencia de lo que afirman los medios seculares, considera que la mayoría de homosexuales, incluida ella misma, no quieren ni el matrimonio ni la adopción de niños por lo que están en desacuerdo con el proyecto de ley del presidente François Hollande. En una entrevista concedida el 11 de enero al sitio web italiano Tempi.it, Nathalie señaló que "la pareja homosexual es diferente a la heterosexual por un simple detalle: no podemos dar origen a la vida".

"Los niños estarían sin un padre y una madre por segunda vez"

Williencourt afirmó con claridad: "soy francesa, soy homosexual, la mayoría de los homosexuales no queremos ni el matrimonio, ni la adopción de los niños, sobre todo no queremos ser tratados del mismo modo que los heterosexuales porque somos diferentes, no queremos igualdad, pero si justicia".

La líder gay señaló luego que "creemos que los niños tienen derecho a tener un padre y una madre, posiblemente biológicos, que posiblemente se amen. Un niño que nace del fruto del amor de su padre y de su madre tiene el derecho a saberlo. Si las parejas homosexuales adoptan niños que ya están privados de sus padres biológicos, entonces (los niños) estarían sin un padre y sin una madre por segunda vez".

"Muchos países no permitirán más adopciones"

"Las parejas heterosexuales están esperando años para poder adoptar a un niño, y se corre el riesgo que muchos países no permitan más adopciones a Francia si esta ley se aprueba, ya que países como China y otros de Asia cuentan con procedimientos de tal manera que las parejas del mismo sexo están excluidas".

"Los niños necesitan la imagen más natural"

"La paz se construye en la familia y para tener paz en la familia es necesario dar a los niños la imagen más natural y más seguridad infunde para crecer y llegar a ser grande. Es decir, la composición clásica de hombre y mujer".

Williencourt denunció luego que "en Francia se nos censura (Homovox.com). Se escucha siempre el lobby de los activistas LGBT (lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y transexuales) que siempre hablan en los medios, pero la mayor parte de los homosexuales están molestos por el hecho que esta organización hace lobby en nuestro nombre. No hemos votado por ellos para que nos representen".

"No es la igualdad lo que es importante, sino la justicia"

Nathalie explicó que los miembros del lobby gay ya tienen una herida en relación con su homosexualidad "porque no la aceptan, reivindican ser como los heterosexuales. En vez de eso nuestro movimiento reivindica que los homosexuales sean tratados de modo distinto que los heterosexuales porque somos diferentes". "No podemos pedir igualdad parasituaciones que son diferentes. No es la igualdad lo que es importante, sino la justicia. Esuna desigualdad justa y una igualdad injusta", precisó.

Homovox es la asociación que reúne a la mayoría de homosexuales en Francia. La asociación fue una de las organizaciones gays que marcharon por las calles de París el pasado 13 de enero junto a más de un millón de personas en defensa del auténtico matrimonio.

"It's a Setup": The Note that Saved a Marriage from Adultery at 30,000 Feet

Sometimes all it takes is a simple act of courage.

Marisa Pereira

I was taking the Atlanta to Bentonville, AR flight several weeks ago intending to do business with Wal-Mart. When I got to the gate, my usual people-watching hobby kicked in. I noticed an animated woman who seemed to be doing all she possibly could to get the attention of this man. I noticed they both had wedding rings (hers a whopping diamond) but did not seem to be married to each other.

As fate would have it, when I boarded, I saw them seated in seats 7A and 7B while I was in 7C across the aisle. Soon a lady approached them and the man in 7B offered her his first class ticket, pointed to some papers saying “do you mind, we’re planning on doing some business”. She accepted and the proffered papers promptly disappeared.

Now started my “show.” I found myself in shock at the blatant sexuality this woman (7A) expressed in trying to “capture” the attention of the man (7B). She really didn’t say much of value but was very physical. She had long hair which she tossed making sure it fell on him; she moved the armrest up so there was nothing between them ensuring she was touching him. She had a loose, knit, beach dress and wore a little jacket over it – I guess the “business” touch. She bent down frequently ensuring her neckline gaped open and often hiked her dress up – one time even doing so to point out birthmarks on her thighs.

I noticed 7B, uncomfortable at first and hesitant, even twisting his wedding ring– so I started praying that he would stay strong. Wanting todo something, I tore a piece of paper and wrote the following on it: don’t destroy your marriage for someone who doesn’t respect you. Yesterday she was with someone else, today with you, tomorrow with someone else. Your wife and kids deserve better!!” Later I added, “It’s a setup” at the beginning of the note because of the determination with which the woman operated.

As the flight progressed, the man was losing control and soon I saw his hand on her thigh. She said, “I know what we should do tonight – we should go dancing.” My prayers were now in high gear… As God works, here comes some turbulence - with an extra dip, we are all on high alert and I made eye contact with him saying “Whoa”. In a couple of minutes, I started the following conversation:

Me: “I noticed your unusual wedding ring, is it silver or platinum?”

7B: “Platinum but it hasn’t been cleaned in a while”

Me: Still looks beautiful. You going to Bentonville on business – with Wal-Mart? (He nodded). Do you go often?

7B: Yes very often – I’m here at least once a week.

Me: So then, you must know the area well. Can you tell me where this is? (At which time I proffered the note I’d written).

I thought he might read the first line and turn away or tell me it is none of my business – but he actually drew closer to the note, focused and read the whole thing. When he looked up, he said “Thank You.”

The woman noticed him withdraw, and if looks could kill – I’d be dead by now! When we were getting off the plane, he came back and said to me – “Thank you – I really appreciate it”. I said “no problem – good luck to you” and we went our separate ways.

The setting I described is borne out of lust – of power, control and flesh. Women do not have the corner on the market as predators. In my experience, men can be formidable in their pursuit as well. We have made sex a street sport. Everyone is doing it so it must be right – it must be “normal” and now in order to keep it “fun” we introduce competition – totally disregarding the cost. ....Keep Reading

Just listen to the Pope and answer: Who am I?....Equal pay act: More BS from the progressives "communists with patience"....LGBT Historians: "No ONE is born Gay"

2014-04-14T05:01:00.000-05:00

Pope: Meditate on Christ's passion during Holy Week

By Kerri Lenartowick

0 Comments

Pope Francis celebrates Palm Sunday Mass in St. Peter's Square on April 13, 2014. Credit: Lauren Cater / CNA.

Vatican City, Apr 13, 2014 / 05:41 am (CNA).- In his Palm Sunday homily, Pope Francis urged the congregation to consider how their actions and attitudes reflected the various characters in the story of Jesus’ passion and death.

“We have heard the (Gospel reading of the) Passion of the Lord. Only, it does us good to ask a question: Who am I? Who am I before my Lord? Who am I before Jesus who enters festively into Jerusalem?” the Pope said on April 13.

“This week moves towards the mystery of the death of Jesus and of his resurrection,” noted the pontiff. “Where is my heart and which of these persons am I most like? It is this question that accompanies us throughout the week.”

The crowds filled a sunny St. Peter’s Square to attend the papal liturgy, clutching olive branches and woven palms as they listened to Pope Francis reflect on the different persons in the Gospel.

Departing entirely from his prepared remarks, the Holy Father considered each figure in the story, followed by questions about their relation to Jesus.

First, the Gospel recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where he is welcomed by adoring crowds. “Do I have the capacity to express my joy, to praise him? Or do I move away? Who am I, before Jesus who suffers?” queried the pontiff.

Then, there are several groups of leaders, priests, pharisees, and teachers of law who decide to kill Jesus. “Am I like one of them?”

“Am I like Judas, who pretends to love and kisses the master to hand him over, to betray him? Am I a traitor?” he reflected.

“Or am I like the disciples who did not understand what it was to betray Jesus?” The Pope continued. They “did not understand anything...they fell asleep while the Lord suffered. Is my life asleep?”

The pontiff went on to several other figures, including Pontius Pilate, who saw that “the situation was difficult” and decided to “wash his hands of it,” refusing to “assume responsibility.”

The crowd who had once welcomed Jesus so joyfully turned on him, finding it “more amusing” to “humiliate Jesus,” while the soldiers “spit on him, insulted him.”

When Jesus takes up his cross, more compassionate figures emerge. “Am I like Simon of Cyrene who was returning from work, tired, but had the good will to to help the Lord carry the cross?” asked the Holy Father.

“Am I like to courageous women, and like the mother of Jesus, who were there, suffering in silence?”

“Am I like the two Marys who remained in front of the tomb, weeping, praying?”

After his homily, the Pope continued the Mass but concluded with a special welcome to those gathered in Rome to plan the next World Youth Day.

At the close of the liturgy, several Brazilian youth handed off the large wooden cross used at World Youth Day to young people from Poland. The 2013 event had been held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, while the next gathering in 2016 will be in Krakow, Poland.

Pope Francis noted that Blessed John Paul II had entrusted the cross to youth 30 years ago. “He asked them to carry it in all the world as a sign of the love of Christ for humanity.”

The pontiff then announced that he hopes to meet with the youth of Asia during his trip to Korea on August 15 of this year.

“Let us ask the Lord that the Cross, together with the icon of Mary ‘Salus Populi Romani’ (Protectress of the Roman People), will be a sign of hope for all, revealing to the world the invincible love of Christ,” said the Holy Father.

He went on to lead the crowds in the Angelus prayer at the conclusion of the Mass.

America's Crisis Isn't About Women's Wages. It's About Men's Wages.

Stephen Moore

April 12, 2014 at 9:15 am

(23)

Photo: Getty Images

The Equal Pay Act, sponsored by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), is a laughably bad idea — almost a parody of liberal interventionism in the market. Under the law, there is federal funding for girls’ negotiation training and grant awards for reducing gender discrimination. It bestows on disgruntled employees yet more grounds on which to sue their employers for alleged discrimination – when, in most cases, the malcontents are just sub-par employees.

But that’s not even the major flaw of this latest Democratic measure against gender discrimination. The crisis in America today isn’t about women’s wages; it’s about men’s wages. Men are still the chief breadwinners in most families, and their wages are not moving much at all. If we look at Census Bureau data, we find that while men’s wages have risen by about 6 percent in real terms since 1980, women’s wages have risen by about 60 percent. Any gap in pay — real or imagined — is rapidly shrinking.

President Obama uses the figure of 77 cents earned by a woman for every dollar earned by a man. But that is a comparison of all women with all men (and even Mr. Obama’s own economists say a woman earns 81 cents for every dollar earned by her male counterpart). In fact, a 2009 Labor Department study found that, when we control for work experience and education, the gap is only about 5 percent. And when we account for the fact that men are more likely to be injured or suffer an accident on the job, and do riskier work and often more unpleasant jobs than women, the gap virtually disappears. My friend Mark Perry, an economist who runs the Carpe Diem blog at the American Enterprise Institute, has documented all this.

Furthermore, the latest surveys of college graduates find virtually no pay discrepancy between men and women, so for this generation the 77-cents mantra is as outdated as bell-bottom jeans.

The real wage crisis has to do with men. The latest education statistics show that women are about 53 percent of college enrollees and almost 60 percent of those pursuing advanced degrees. Pay rises with educational attainment. There is almost no gender gap for the latest generation entering the workforce; if the current educational trends continue, it is quite possible that women will start having higher earnings than men, and this will be especially true of women who do not have children.

What are the implications of a society in which women earn more than men? We don’t really know, but it could be disruptive to family stability. If men aren’t the breadwinners, will women regard them as economically expendable? We saw what happened to family structure in low-income and black households when a welfare check took the place of a father’s paycheck. Divorce rates go up when men lose their jobs.

The problem here is especially acute with respect to black families. Black women have been on a 30-year trend of outpacing black men in terms of education and thus earnings. Men are becoming financially expendable. It is also true that the decline in men’s wages is necessitating women to work to supplement family income. Sometimes this is by the woman’s choice, but in this rough economy it is less a matter of free will than of economic necessity.

Gender gaps in pay are also a distraction from the other real financial problem, which is declining pay for almost all groups. Between 2009 and 2012, every racial group and both genders have done worse. Actually, women’s paychecks have fallen slightly more than men’s in this phony recovery — and that is despite the fact that one of Mr. Obama’s first acts as president was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter paycheck-equality act. So much for the government’s being able to equalize incomes through edict.

Since more and more families have two earners — the husband and the wife — women are hardly going to cheer if the gender gap falls only because their husbands are earning less. But that is the way Mr. Obama has pursued equality — by devising policies that make us all a little poorer.

Income, race, and gender inequality have been clever distractions for the president. The gap that matters most he chooses to ignore: the gap between what middle-class people should be earning and what they are in fact taking home. Wages are falling for nearly everyone, Mr. President: for men, women, blacks, whites, the poor, and the middle class.

The $1,800 decline in middle-class incomes since the recovery began is the issue that matters to most Americans, and this is what Republicans should be shouting from the rooftops.

Originally published in National Review Online.

Even LGBT Historians Admit No One Is 'Born Gay'

In his article, David Benkof writes, "Sure, there’s substantial evidence of both discreet and open same-sex love and sex in pre-modern times. But no society before the 19th century had a gay minority or even discernibly gay-oriented individuals." (Original photo: Flickr/Mike Krzeszak)

Whether it's Macklemore's "Same Love" or Lady Gaga's "Born This Way," our culture is pretty convinced that homosexuality is inherent from birth.

But as it turns out, those within the LGBT movement aren't that convinced themselves.

In an article in the Daily Caller, gay writer David Benkof presents the solid case of the historians—several of whom are also LGBT—who maintain that the sexual orientation of homosexuality didn't exist until about 150 years ago.

While same-sex relationships and behavior have happened from time to time throughout history, LGBT scholarly studies show zero evidence of any culture with gay-oriented individuals at any point in history.

The mountain of scholarly research also continues to show no "gay gene" accounting for sexual orientation from birth.

The basis of these claims is that sexual orientation, as part of a person's identity, is entirely a modern invention. Even in Greek culture, where homosexual behavior is known to have occurred, the line of reasoning goes, there is nothing to show that even a minority of individuals identified as gay or homosexual in any way. Rather, homosexuality was supposedly considered a supplement to one's regular heterosexual relationships.

The reasoning of such historians also reveals that there was no heterosexual orientation in cultures past at all. Not that no one was attracted to the opposite sex—hardly—but that the idea of heterosexuality as an identifier couldn't have existed in a world were homosexualit didn't exist either. (Fish don't know they're wet.)

In other words, sexual orientation isn't a core identifier like race or gender; it's fully a social construct.

Although Benkof maintains that the LGBT cause can survive in spite of such findings, only the biblical worldview fits in with the facts. So shouldn't this lead to a victory in the so-called culture war?

The Challenge for Christians

The Bible doesn't directly mention the gay orientation because the concept of sexual orientation is a non sequitur both in Scripture and in (as we now know) most of history. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual actions and desires, along with any kind of sexual action or desire outside of marriage. Genesis 5:2, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Matthew 5:28, Romans 1:27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 leave no room for doubt.

But as long as the LGBT movement keeps the debate framed around sexual identity, Christians will be seen as hating people for who they are.

Christians are seen as saying, "Who you are is wrong, so here's some moral actions that will fix it." But that isn't the gospel at all. When we identify ourselves with Christ's death, we are rendered dead to our human nature and forgiven of all our sins; and through Christ's resurrection, we are both declared innocent and given the ability to live in a new nature—a righteous nature—through God's own Spirit.

On the question of "Who am I?" the New Testament really gives only two options: I am either a natural-born sinner or reborn righteous through Christ. (See Romans 5.)

Thus, who we all areis wrong because we're naturally born into a state of sinfulness. But no actions can change our nature. (No amount of time spent in airplanes will make me a bird, and no amount of time doing good deeds will make me anything other than a sinner.) We need a new nature, and only then can we exchange sinful actions and desires for righteous ones.

Evangelicals must not only 1) faithfully represent the Word's teachings on controversial issues like homosexuality, but also 2) make it known that your true identity from God's standpoint is far weightier than modern social constructs about sexuality.

If culture catches up to the fact that the gay sexual identity is a social construct, then perhaps it will understand that the Bible's condemnations of sexual immorality are directed against our sinful actions, thoughts and nature—not our basic personalities.

But until then, we in the church still have an uphill battle: to preach a gospel that doesn't just correct wrong behavior but creates rebirth.

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!

2014-04-13T07:08:00.000-05:00

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^thanniversary 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.

Progressives...yeah right, just communists with patience!...Obamacare's victory lap LOL....Una Cientifica Atea descubre que los Milagros Existen, ergo DIOS!

2014-04-12T18:50:00.000-05:00

"Share" if you think Glenn is right about progressives. Watch the video here: http://bit.ly/1gAFOtw

While the Left was Taking a Victory Lap

for Obamacare, Majority of America Pointed
and Laughed

By Bubba Atkinson

7 hours ago

Victory. Obama and the White House managed to hit their goal of 7 million sign ups for ObamaCare. Forget that a majority of those people already had insurance, and that many of the sign ups haven’t yet paid, it was victory for the left.

But perception also matters, especially in an election year, and America isn’t dumping a tub of Gatorade all over Coach Obama’s back.

As you can see, 43% of Americans approve and 54% disapprove of ObamaCare.

Although it’s still early, this is not the kind of stuff you want to see if you’re a vulnerable Democrat this year.

The White House can sing and dance all they want, America just isn’t sold. It’s not Conservative, Liberal, Republican or Democrat; America clearly isn’t comfortable with a law that was introduced poorly, is detrimental to many, and still leaves too many without insurance.

Many would rebut that this is partially a case of more extreme partisan perspectives skewing the results in a certain direction.

A vast majority of Democrats, 79%, approve of the law, and 69% think it will make the healthcare situation better. In contrast, 87% of Republicans disapprove of the law, and 77% think it will make the healthcare situation worse.

Independents tell an even stronger story:

They disapprove of the law by 65% to 32%, and 53% believe the law will make the healthcare situation worse compared with 26% who say better.

Consider this final chart:

Everyone can agree that ObamaCare has helped some people. That’s a fact. But at what cost?

We’d wish you good luck in 2014, Democrats, but you’re going to need a lot more than that.

Alabama Mom’s ObamaCare Horror Story Gives Ameri

PARA ESCÁNDALO Y CONFUSIÓN DE ALGUNOS

Jacalyn Duffin, la científica atea que Dios eligió para que defendiera un milagro

Habla la hematóloga Duffin, cuyo análisis «determinó» la canonización de la primera santa canadiense. «No es la Iglesia quien se aleja de la ciencia, son los científicos que construyeron una pared artificial entre ellos y la Iglesia… Porque son ignorantes». Ahora que he terminado el trabajo, ¿me puedes decir: se trata de una demanda o de un milagro? Jacalyn Duffin 63 años, canadiense, médico hematólogo e historiadora de la medicina y profesora en la Universidad de Queen nunca imaginó escuchar por respuesta: «Un milagro».

12/04/14 7:33 PM | Imprimir | Enviar

(Portaluz/InfoCatólica) Ella, científica, atea, que siempre había creído en la «verdad de la historia, en un orden natural». No podía imaginarse que «la Iglesia prestaba atención a la ciencia», cuando ella compartía la opinión de la mayoría de los otros médicos: «La religión es sólo superstición, la medicina en cambio, es verdad». Pero es la misma ciencia quien hizo que Jacalyn sostenga una posición que «ha dejado locos a todos mis colegas: yo soy una científica, atea y creo en los milagros.»

Para entender cómo Jacalyn -autora además de cinco libros donde analiza sobre 1.400 milagros registrados en los Archivos Vaticanos-, ha llegado a sostener una posición casi «herética» (con la ciencia) a los ojos de sus contemporáneos, se deben conocer los acontecimientos de su vida que ella no había «planeado» y el increíble e «inusual» rol que tuvo en la canonización de la primera santa de Canadá, en 1990.

Los santos y los milagros no parecen importarles a los científicos. ¿Qué la motivó a ocuparse de esto?

Mi amor por la ciencia, aunque la forma en la que llegué a ello no es común.

¿Usted es médico o una historiadora?

Me gradué en medicina y me especialicé en enfermedades de la sangre. Cuando perdí a mi primer marido, me casé con un diplomático y lo seguí a París. Me aburría enormemente y, como no podía ejercer mi profesión en Francia, tomé un doctorado en la Sorbona, en historia de la medicina. Cuando regresamos a Canadá, quise volver a ejercer como médico, pero en los hospitales me decían: «Estudiaste historia, podrías matar a alguien». Entonces me iba al hospital tan pronto como había una conferencia y siempre trataba de intervenir, quería demostrar que yo era inteligente. Sabía hacer mi trabajo y debía demostrarlo.

¿Cuando llegó la gran oportunidad?

Un día, una colega hematóloga me pidió que analizara unas imágenes de la médula ósea (de un paciente): «No puedo decirte nada sobre este caso, sólo se necesita una segunda opinión de un testigo ciego», me dijo. Testigo ciego es un médico que analiza los datos sin saber nada del caso. Acepté porque quería demostrarle que yo era capaz y esperaba que lo asumiera. Pero no sabía en lo que me estaba metiendo.

¿Por qué?

Pensé que tendría que analizar algunas imágenes, sin embargo, eran más de 300, sin contar los exámenes de sangre. Me dejaron exhausta… y vi que el paciente tenía leucemia mieloide aguda, que es el peor tipo de leucemia que existe; mata en un promedio de 18 meses. Desde la primera imagen pensé que el paciente tenía que estar muerto: era 1986 y los exámenes se remontaban a 1978. Pero la médula ósea contaba otra historia. Los exámenes mostraban que la leucemia estaba curada y en remisión. Esto era increíble, pero no imposible. Después de cuatro meses, la leucemia puede estar de vuelta, agresiva, como antes, y en este punto la Biblia de los hematólogos es clara: si la leucemia regresa, después de ir a remisión, el paciente muere. Es lo que dice la ciencia, y nunca se ha contradicho. Por esto sabía que el paciente debía estar muerto, pero las imágenes mostraban una increíble segunda remisión y la última imagen disponible mostraba una médula ósea perfecta. Entonces pensé: «Es una lástima que haya muerto mientras estaba en remisión». De hecho los medicamentos que se toman para frenar el regreso de la leucemia, pueden causar infecciones. El cuadro me quedaba claro: de seguro la familia del paciente había denunciado al médico debido a que su ser querido estaba muerto a pesar de que había superado de manera inusual la enfermedad y el médico, durante el juicio, había pedido el análisis de un testigo ciego para demostrar que él había actuado de la mejor manera.

¿Cuándo se enteró que se trataba de otra cosa?

Cuando terminé mi trabajo se lo di a mi colega y le dije: «Bueno, ¿es una demanda o un milagro?» Cuando me respondió que era un milagro, y que el paciente, tras ocho años, todavía estaba vivo, yo no podía creerlo.

¿El Vaticano la consultó para evaluar una canonización?

No, en absoluto. Los expertos del Vaticano ya habían rechazado este caso. Para ellos no se podía hablar de milagro porque al analizar las imágenes no habían encontrado la primera remisión, sólo la segunda. Y de acuerdo con la ciencia una remisión es posible, dos no. Así que no había milagro. Pero esto era un insulto: Soy una científico, nadie me puede tomar por tonta. Una vez entregados mis resultados, me fui al Vaticano para presenciar el proceso con una pila de documentos y pruebas. Para mí era una cuestión de principios, de ciencia.

¿Para usted, una científica atea, era un milagro y para el Vaticano no?

Así como la canonización tiene reglas, también la medicina: hay criterios precisos para reconocer una remisión y una recaída. El Vaticano se estaba equivocando.

¿Quién era la sanada por el milagro?

Una mujer canadiense que después de la primera remisión de la leucemia, sabiendo las consecuencias decidió orar a Marie-Marguerite d´Youville pidiendo la gracia. Lo bello es que la paciente no era particularmente religiosa o practicante, pero rezaron por ella, a horas fijas, la familia y todas las parroquias de la ciudad. Es increíble cómo las oraciones sirven para un milagro. El 9 de diciembre de 1990, Juan Pablo II decidió canonizar a Marie-Marguerite d´Youville y me invitó.

¿Algo más en particular?

Yo no sabía nada del proceso de canonización. Mi madre era anglicana, esa era toda mi cultura religiosa, pero luego se convirtió en una atea, y yo pensaba que en la Iglesia Católica determinaban simplemente por un: «Estaba mal, oré y ahora estoy curada. He aquí el milagro». Pero no, el proceso es muy técnico: el Vaticano no considera opiniones sin hechos observados con el conocimiento científico más avanzado del momento. Y cuando en Roma me dieron el acta del proceso, la «Positio Super miraculo «, y me dijeron que iba a ser mantenida en los archivos del Vaticano, me encendí y pensé: ¡Cuántos milagros habrán allí, y tal vez todos han sido sometidos al mismo rigor científico! A partir de ese momento mi vida cambió.

¿Cómo?

En primer lugar, en Canadá me ofrecieron un trabajo como hematóloga y es realmente irónico haber vuelto a ejercer la medicina gracias a la Iglesia. Por ese tiempo hice también más de 20 viajes a los archivos del Vaticano, donde analicé 1.400 milagros que en los últimos 400 años sirvieron para establecer canonizaciones. Todo tipo de curaciones de enfermedades físicas. Hoy entiendo que la Iglesia y la ciencia tienen una larga tradición común.

¿Usted que es atea cree que se han producido más de 1.400 milagros?

Puedo oír a muchos de mis colegas, que me miran a disgusto y dicen: «Ah, ¿pero entonces usted cree en los milagros?». Quiero aclarar: ocurren cosas inexplicables que la ciencia no puede demostrar. Las personas que tienen fe y creen en Dios argumentan que eso sucede por la oración. En los últimos años he aprendido de la humildad: si no puedo explicar ciertos hechos con la ciencia, ¿quién soy para decir que no ha sido por la oración? Somos muy arrogantes en la medicina y dejamos pasar por alto estos hechos, pero la ciencia médica debería prestar más atención a los milagros que suceden muy a menudo.

¿Cree usted que Dios está haciendo milagros?

No sé explicar por qué suceden y yo no creo en Dios, pero estoy abierta a la posibilidad de que la causa sea Él. Cuando voy a conferencias, incluso con médicos católicos, siempre hay alguien que me dice: «Pero a estas alturas debes de creer en Dios y convertirte al catolicismo». Pero no es así, yo soy atea.

¿Nunca pensó en la conversión?

Sí, pero luego me dije a mí misma, la fe en Dios es en sí un milagro. Un milagro que no me ha pasado. Esta es la única respuesta que puedo dar, o al menos lo único que hace desistir a los detractores que se enojan conmigo.

Source

Putin vs Obama, is America Godless? Mmhhh....As always, reason and faith in line with Science: Obtaining Embrionic type stem cells from Mature cells!!!...Por que quieren dominiar las escuelas y mas importante a los alumnos, los socio-progressistas?

2014-01-30T07:46:00.001-06:00

Putin: America Is Godless, Has Turned Away from Christian Values

by Robert Wilde 29 Jan 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the West, including the United States, for eschewing Christian values and opting instead for a “path to degradation.”

In his State of the Nation speech last month, Putin asserted that, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.” Russia has adopted new laws that ban homosexual propaganda and criminalizes the insulting of religious sensibilities.

The law on religious sensibilities was approved in the wake of a protest in Moscow’s largest cathedral by a female punk rock group, Pussy Riot. State-run television said the group’s “demonic” protest was funded by “some Americans.” Russia’s newfound embrace of traditional values has prompted a rise in Orthodox vigilantism. Extreme groups such as the Union of Orthodox Banner Bearers, an ultraconservative faction who adopted a slogan “Orthodoxy or Death,” are gaining prominence.

It was not that long ago that the United States was accusing Russia for being a “godless nation.” On March 8, 1983, Ronald Reagan said this about Russia to an audience of evangelicals:

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness--pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

History supports the 40th President of the United States' remarks. According to a 1995 Russian presidential committee report, Soviet authorities executed 200,000 clergy and believers from 1917 to 1937, many of them crucified, scalped, and otherwise tortured. Thousands of churches were destroyed, and those that survived were turned into warehouses, garages, or museums of atheism.

Moreover, another 500,000 religious figures were persecuted and 40,000 churches destroyed in the period from 1922 to 1980, the report said. Half the country’s mosques and more than half the synagogues were also destroyed. “Clergymen were crucified on churches’ holy gates, shot, scalped [and] strangled,” said Alexander Yakovlev, head of the Commission for the Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression. “I was especially shocked by accounts of priests turned into columns of ice in winter,” Yakovlev said. “It was total cruelty.”

Scientists Create Embryonic-Type Stem Cells from Mature Cells

from REUTERS 29 Jan 2014

LONDON (Reuters) - In experiments that could open a new era in stem cell biology, scientists have found a simple way to reprogram mature animal cells back into an embryonic-like state that allows them to generate many types of tissue.

The research, described as game-changing by experts in the field, suggests human cells could in future be reprogrammed by the same technique, offering a simpler way to replace damaged cells or grow new organs for sick and injured people.

Chris Mason, chair of regenerative medicine bioprocessing at University College London, who was not involved in the work, said its approach in mice was "the most simple, lowest-cost and quickest method" to generate so-called pluripotent cells - able to develop into many different cell types - from mature cells.
Read the rest of the story at Reuters.

El ministro niega que se enseñe a los niños a ser homosexuales

Francia: padres boicotean la asignatura «ABCD de la igualdad» impuesta por el Ministerio de Educación

Desde la semana pasada, una campaña insta a los padres a desescolarizar a sus hijos una vez al mes como medida de protesta contra una asignatura adoctrinadora en la ideología de género impuesta por el Ministerio de Educación francés. Según los medios locales, en algunos centros las ausencias llegaron a ser de un tercio del alumnado, lo que alertó al ministerio. La campaña lleva el nombre de «Día de suspensión del colegio» y ha sido transmitida sobre todo vía SMS y a través de redes sociales.

(Agencias/InfoCatólica) El ministro francés de Educación, Vincent Peillon, explicó que algunos padres le preguntaron por la veracidad de un rumor según el cual en la escuela francesa se alienta en los niños la homosexualidad.

«Es totalmente falso», afirmó el responsable de Educación, quien defendió la asignatura, bautizada como «ABCD de la igualdad». Está previsto que se dé en todas las escuelas francesas a partir del próximo curso.

La intervención del ministro se produce después de que un gran número de padres no llevaran en los últimos días a sus hijos a la escuela en respuesta a un llamamiento al boicot de esta asignatura orquestado por la escritora Farida Belghoul, líder del movimiento «Manif pour tous», creado el año pasado en oposición a la legalización del matrimonio homosexual.

Europe: Deflation, USA: Stagnation, China: Danger....For 70% of teens Gay attraction is dubios...Que paso con la Pobreza?

2014-01-10T07:29:00.000-06:00

World View: Eurozone Plummets into Deflation

by John J. Xenakis 9 Jan 2014

Eurozone plummets into deflation

Eurozone plummets into deflation

Inflation versus deflation (Don Stott, Silver Bear Cafe)

The eurozone consumer price index (CPI) inflation rate fell to 0.8% in December, continuing a long string of steadily decreasing month after month inflation rate reports. The "core inflation rate," which excludes food and energy and so is less volatile, fell to 0.7%. The following table shows the core inflation rate reported in each of several months in the last year:

' Dec 2012 1.5%
' Jul 2013 1.1%
' Aug 1.1%
' Sep 1.0%
' Oct 0.8%
' Nov 0.9%
' Dec 2013 0.7%

This has been a fairly dramatic trend and demonstrates that deflation is becoming firmly lodged in the European economy.

For over ten years, mainstream economists have been predicting inflation or hyperinflation because central banks have had near-zero interest rates and have been pumping trillions of "printed" dollars into the economy. For ten years, Generational Dynamics has been predicting a deflationary spiral. Once again, generational theory is right, and mainstream economists are wrong. Mainstream economists didn't predict and can't explain the tech bubble of the 1990s, the real estate and credit bubble of the 2000s, or the financial crisis of 2007.

It was perfectly obvious that there was a huge real estate bubble in the 2004-2007 time frame, as I wrote about many times in that period. Mainstream economists, however, didn't even recognize the bubble until around 2009, when they started saying, "Oh yeah, by the way, there was a real estate bubble in 2006. Let's not do that again." Are you kidding me? Mainstream economists have no clue what's going on, and they have no clue what will happen next year, except to assume that the same thing that happened last year will happen next year, and you don't need mainstream economists to make that "prediction."

The Wall Street stock market bubble has gotten so large that even some mainstream financial advisers are predicting a crash soon. (See, for example, Estimating the Risk of a Market Crash, John P. Hussman Ph.D.) According to Friday's Wall Street Journal, the S&P 500 Price/Earnings index (stock valuations) on Friday (January 3) morning was 18.88, which is astronomical by historic standards, indicating that stocks are far overpriced, and the stock market bubble is worse than ever.

As Europe spirals into deflation, it's worth duly noting that Bank of England Governor Mark Carney is expressing concern about China's credit bubble. The Chinese credit system has grown to $24 trillion from $9 trillion in late 2008, equivalent to adding the entire US commercial banking system.

Generational Dynamics predicts a continued deflationary spiral, and a massive world financial crisis, as a crisis in one country or market creates a chain reaction that affects the entire world. Reuters and Telegraph (London) and Telegraph (Dec 2013)

70 percent of teens with ‘gay’ attraction later say they are exclusively heterosexual: study

by Thaddeus Baklinski

Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:03 EST

ITHACA, NY, January 9, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Questions are being raised about the validity of research on teenagers with same-sex attractions after a Cornell University professor found that more than 70 percent of teens who said they had ever had a same-sex “romantic attraction” later told researchers that they were unreservedly heterosexual.

The study, published last month in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, also known as Add Health, which conducted four waves of surveys on teens as they matured into adulthood from 1994 to 2008.

Study author Ritch Savin-Williams, director of Cornell's Sex and Gender Lab, said that some of the "inconsistent" data may have been caused by confusion over the questions in Add Health, which could have led some teens to incorrectly say they were homosexuals. But Savin-Williams highlighted "the existence of mischievous adolescents who played a ‘jokester’ role"

"In this essay, we argue that researchers who base their investigations of non-heterosexuality derived from reports of romantic attractions of adolescent participants from Wave 1 of Add Health must account for their disappearance in future waves of data collection," Savin-Williams wrote in the introduction to his study.
He said that survey questions about “romantic attraction” might have confused the teens, especially since the Add Health survey did not define what the term meant.

He also noted the role of “jokester” replies, citing hundreds of survey responses from teens who said they had an artificial arm, hand, leg, or foot, which subsequently proved to be false when the teens were interviewed at home.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

The researcher pointed out that the existence of “inconsistent” teens is not new to social science studies, but inconsistencies in the Add Health data may have been ignored by analysts and may have led to misleading conclusions. “It’s not that we saw something that no one else had seen,” Savin-Williams said. “But they kept using the data...People should have said, ‘Hold on here. Who are these kids?’”

He noted that many previous Add Health data analyses have shown suspiciously high numbers of same-sex attracted teens, but argues that confused teens and false answers may have distorted those results, making the studies on sexual minority teens inaccurate.

"The high prevalence of Wave 1 youth with either both-sex or same-sex romantic attractions was initially striking and unexpected," Savin-Williams wrote. "Subsequent data from Add Health indicated that this prevalence sharply declined over time such that over 70% of these Wave 1 adolescents identified as exclusively heterosexual as Wave 4 young adults."

"Importantly, these ‘dubious’ gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents may have led researchers to erroneously conclude from the data that sexual-minority youth are more problematic than heterosexual youth in terms of physical, mental, and social health," Savin-Williams concluded.
An abstract with a link to obtain the full report is available here.

Por qué hemos estado perdiendo la guerra contra la pobreza desde la época de Johnson

Israel Ortega

Hace cuarenta años, el presidente de Estados Unidos Lyndon B. Johnson declaró en tono desafiante la guerra. No, no era contra el comunismo ni contra las fuerzas comunistas de Vietnam. En su lugar, este texano alto y desgarbado declaró la guerra contra la pobreza. Entre sus comentarios preparados para un Congreso conjunto, Johnson dijo de manera confiada: “…Nuestro objetivo no es sólo aliviar los síntomas de la pobreza, sino curarla y, sobre todo, prevenirla”.

Un estudio rápido del 36º presidente de Estados Unidos nos revela a un joven profesor expuesto a algunos de los más profundos niveles de pobreza e indigencia a lo largo de la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México, lo que ayuda a explicar por qué Johnson se puso un objetivo tan honorable y ambicioso cuando se convirtió en el jefe ejecutivo del país.

Desgraciadamente, tras cuatro décadas y miles y miles de millones de dólares gastados en los programas federales contra la pobreza, la realidad es que el número de americanos que vive en la pobreza ha aumentado. Según los últimos datos de la Oficina del Censo, el número de americanos que vive en la pobreza se mantiene en torno a los 50 millones. Mientras que el gobierno establece oficialmente el nivel de pobreza en unos ingresos individuales de alrededor de $11,500, para una familia de cuatro miembros la cifra ronda los $23,550.

En el caso de los hispanos, estas cifras dan aún más que pensar. Según un reciente artículo del Washington Post, los niños hispanos conforman ya el mayor grupo de pobreza infantil, lo que supone la primera vez en la historia de Estados Unidos que los niños blancos pobres han sido superados por los niños pobres de otra raza o etnia.

Puesto que se espera que el número de hispanos que vive en Estados Unidos se incremente en los próximos años y décadas, estas cifras revelan un problema sintomático no sólo de un grupo étnico, sino de todo el Estado a nivel colectivo.

Y aunque en las cuatro décadas desde que Johnson declaró la guerra contra la pobreza hemos visto una vertiginosa colección de avances tecnológicos que pocos podrían haber predicho, un viaje en el tiempo apenas habría hecho que nos sorprendiéramos al escuchar las recetas de la política federal sobre la mejor forma de reducir la pobreza. Los argumentos se pueden resumir de este modo: con el fin de reducir la pobreza, se incrementan el rol y el presupuesto del gobierno federal.

Con la excepción de la emblemática Ley de Reforma de la Asistencia Social de 1996, el Congreso y los sucesivos presidentes han adoptado el mismo mantra, esperando de forma desesperada poder desplegar algún día una pancarta que diga: “Misión cumplida” respecto a la “Guerra contra la Pobreza”, aunque no hayan tenido éxito hasta ahora.

Es por eso por lo que si hay alguna vez un momento oportuno para oír voces que disientan sobre cómo reducir de manera efectiva la pobreza, éste sería tan buen momento como cualquier otro.
Para empezar, reafirmemos lo que funciona. Por ejemplo, en cuanto a la perniciosa cantidad de niños hispanos que viven en la pobreza, la gran mayoría proviene de hogares monoparentales.

Mis colegas de la Fundación Heritage han pasado años estudiando estas cifras y publicaron un documento con un título muy oportuno: “Matrimonio, la mejor arma contra la pobreza infantil”. Entre los hallazgos del mismo destaca que, comparados con niños criados en familias intactas, los niños criados en hogares monoparentales tienen más probabilidades de sufrir problemas emocionales y de comportamiento.

Además, el actual sistema de asistencia social incentiva el que las personas vean los programas públicos de ayuda como permanentes, en lugar de temporales. Esto es exactamente lo opuesto al espíritu de la visión de Lyndon B. Johnson sobre cómo erradicar la pobreza: “Pues la guerra contra la pobreza no se ganará aquí en Washington… se debe ganar en cada uno de nuestros hogares”. Esos perversos incentivos están reflejados en un reciente informe que citaba que en la mayoría de los estados del país, vivir de la asistencia social resultaba más rentable que trabajar en un empleo por el salario mínimo.

Esta es la realidad que demasiado a menudo no se tiene en cuenta por culpa de la mezquindad de la política.
En vez de politizar la pobreza como hemos estado haciendo durante los últimos 40 años, pongamos el énfasis en la verdadera necesidad del rol que debe desempeñar la sociedad civil si queremos disminuir el número de americanos que vive en la pobreza. Y, por supuesto, eso no quiere decir que el gobierno federal no deba desempeñar ningún papel en esta honorable cruzada, sino que mejor resistámonos al deseo de delegar totalmente este verdadero problema en nuestros responsables públicos electos. El país nos lo agradecerá.

Christians Martyrs because of Islamist Extremism, Why?....25% of women seeking abortions were abused...Luchar contra la Pobreza: Trabajo y Matrimonio!!!

2014-01-09T08:28:00.000-06:00

Report: Number of 'Martyred' Christians Nearly Doubled in 2013

by AWR Hawkins 8 Jan 2014

A report from the non-denominational group Open Doors says the number of Christians martyred around the world for their faith nearly doubled in 2013.

The report documents 2,123 Christians killed for their faith in 2013 versus 1,201 killed in 2012.
Details, carried in Reuters, show that over half the deaths took place Syria alone. However, because many of those deaths are due to heightened tensions from the civil war, Open Doors ranked "North Korea at the top of its list of 50 most dangerous countries for Christians. " The next four most dangerous were "Somalia, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan."

Open Doors' France's Michael Varton said ongoing conflicts and wars that pit Islamists against others--as in Syria--are especially dangerous for Christians. The report says, "Islamist extremism is the worst persecutor of the church worldwide."

The report makes clear that in North Korea the issue isn't always the number of Christians killed but the number held as political prisoners for their faith. Open Doors estimates "50,000 to 70,000 [Christians] lived in political prison camps."

One-quarter of all women seeking an abortion were abused, new study finds

by Ben Johnson

Wed Jan 08, 2014 13:56 EST

Updated at 3 p.m. EST to include remarks from Dr. David Reardon.
LONDON, January 8, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One out of every four women who seeks an abortion has been a victim of abuse, according to a new meta-analysis.

In the study, which was published online yesterday in the peer-reviewed open access journal PLOS Medicine, the researchers found that intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with higher abortion rates and repeat abortions.

The meta-analysis, which examined 74 studies of women around the world, found that between 2.5 and 30 percent of abused women have had an abortion within the last year. That rates soars to between 14 and 40 percent over a lifetime.

Physical, mental, psychological or sexual abuse – as well as “coerced decision-making” – were linked to higher abortion rates and repeat abortions. The authors refer to multiple studies over the last decade, including a 2005 report that found women were 10 times more likely to abort a planned pregnancy. Studies showed between two and 18 percent of women said they felt coerced to have the abortion.
Post-abortion women have testified that they were forced to abort by parents, boyfriends, ex-boyfriends, husbands, abusers, even policemen.

“These findings reinforce the broad consensus that there is a significant relationship between induced abortion and violence against women,” Dr. Jacqueline C. Harvey of the Reproductive Research Audit (RRA) told LifeSiteNews.com. This “suggests that for many women, the choice to have an abortion is not made freely, but from fear,” said Harvey, who testified about the issue before the Texas legislature last July.
Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy analyst at Operation Rescue, told LifeSiteNews the survey confirms her own observations. “The most dangerous time for women is during pregnancy when they are at risk of increased domestic violence attacks, especially if their partners want them to have an abortion against their will,” she said.

Even the National Organization for Women has recognized that murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women.

Dr. David Reardon, director of The Elliot Institute, which produced a 21-page report on forced abortions in 2004, explained the psychology of the abusers to LifeSiteNews. “In most cases of abuse, these are not men who want to have children,” he said. “They see the pregnancy as threat to their freedom and control and domination, being the focus of the woman's affections, so they see the child as a threat to themselves.”
The forced abortions can lead to a vicious circle of abuse, he warned. “As a result of an increased guilt, anger, rage, and other issues that they face, women who had abortions can become more self-destructive, so they may seek out abusive relationships as a form of self-punishment,” he said.

Because of this high rate, abortionists “should consider the possibility that women seeking termination of pregnancy may be experiencing intimate partner violence,” the study's five authors wrote.
Harvey said, “The take away from this meta-analysis is the cry for help – the willingness and desire these women have to escape violent relationships and the need for clinics to put patients over profits and help these women at risk, rather than merely taking their money and returning them to their abusers.”

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

Susan Bewley, a consultant obstetrician at King's College in London and one of the study's authors, found that abortion-minded women "welcomed the opportunity to disclose their experiences ... and to be offered help." She even suggested that abortion facilities "represent an appropriate setting in which to test interventions designed to reduce intimate partner violence."

But pro-lifers did not hold out any hope that the billion-dollar abortion industry will change its ways.
“If anyone thinks that abortionists might be willing to intervene on behalf of these women, they are sadly mistaken,” Sullenger said. “Abortionists are more likely to cover up for the abusers, as long as they can get paid for the abortion.”

Instead, the abortion industry has a history of fighting and then ignoring laws requiring abortionists to report abuse. As of January 1, Dr. Ulrich George Klopfer had to shut down his abortion facility in Indiana after failing to report the potential statutory rape of minor girls to state officials under the terms of the law. Undercover investigations have shown abortion workers telling minors how to cover up for their abusers.
Sometimes abortionists themselves are the perpetrators. In 2003, a jury convicted Arizona abortionist Brian Finkel of 24 counts of sexual abuse. Abortion employees from California to Michigan, from Oregon to Pennsylvania, and from England to Ghana have been convicted or accused of sexually abusing women during the abortion procedure.

“This kind of violence against women is an unfortunate consequence of abortion on demand,” Sullenger told LifeSiteNews. “It ironically robs many abused women of their 'choice' to keep their babies, and perhaps that is why domestic violence against pregnant women seems to be a low priority for the 'abortion-rights' movement.”

Cómo luchar contra la pobreza – y vencerla

Jennifer A. Marshall

Cuando el presidente Johnson inició la “Guerra contra la Pobreza” el 8 de enero de 1964, prometió “no sólo aliviar los síntomas de la pobreza, sino curarla y, sobre todo, prevenirla”. Por desgracia, el medio siglo de legado de la “Gran Sociedad” de Johnson no ha estado a la altura de ese noble objetivo.

La “Guerra contra la Pobreza” no le ha hecho justicia a los pobres. Nuestra responsabilidad con el prójimo en situación de necesidad exige más: corregir la dirección de las normativas púbicas y un compromiso por parte de cada uno de nosotros para hacer lo que podamos en nuestras propias comunidades.

A pesar de gastar cerca de $20 billones desde que empezó la “Guerra contra la Pobreza”, el índice de pobreza sigue estando hoy en día casi tan alto como a mediados de los 60. En la actualidad, el gobierno gasta anualmente cerca de $1 billón en 80 programas federales de ayuda según ingresos que proporcionan dinero, alimentos, vivienda, atención médica y servicios sociales enfocados en los americanos pobres y con bajos ingresos. Pero evidentemente, los responsables políticos no se pueden esconder detrás de montones de programas y miles de millones en gasto y afirmar que han cumplido con sus obligaciones con los pobres. Las buenas intenciones no bastan.

Necesitamos cambiar el carácter de las ayudas públicas. Eso significa modificar el objetivo de los incentivos de los programas federales de asistencia social. “A veces esos incentivos fomentan la dependencia, incluso durante generaciones”, indicó Robert L. Woodson, fundador y presidente del Centro Neighborhood Enterprise, en su testimonio del año pasado ante el Comité de Presupuesto del Senado. Woodson conoce de primera mano los efectos de estos programas, ya que trabaja con responsables comunitarios de todo el país con el objetivo de facultar a quienes están en situación de necesidad para que puedan vencer a la adversidad.

Por otro lado, el tipo correcto de incentivos puede “ayudar a la gente para que adquiera responsabilidades personales y persiga sus sueños”, observa Woodson. Transformar esos incentivos para fomentar la responsabilidad personal tiene un efecto espectacular: después de que la reforma de la asistencia social de 1996 comenzara a exigir que los beneficiarios trabajasen o se preparasen para trabajar, el número de inscritos en la asistencia social cayó a menos de la mitad, mientras que los índices de pobreza entre madres solteras y niños negros cayeron hasta mínimos históricos. Pero aquella reforma modificó los incentivos de solo uno de los más de 80 programas federales de asistencia social.

Como concluye Woodson:

De modo que si queremos ayudar a quienes están en situación de necesidad, tenemos que preguntarnos: ¿El enfoque que estamos adoptando para paliar la pobreza, por lo que lo llamamos red de seguridad, está ayudando realmente o está siendo perjudicial esta mano amiga?

Además de promover el trabajo, cualquier iniciativa seria en nombre de quienes están en situación de necesidad debe tomarse en serio el restablecer el matrimonio como la mejor arma de Estados Unidos contra la pobreza infantil. Los hijos nacidos y criados fuera del matrimonio tienen más de cinco veces más probabilidades de sufrir la pobreza que sus coetáneos criados en familias intactas.

Cuando comenzó la “Guerra contra la Pobreza”, el 8% de los niños de Estados Unidos nacía fuera del matrimonio. Desde mediados de los años 60, el fenómeno de tener hijos sin estar casados se ha disparado hasta más del 40% de todos los nacimientos; y desde el 25% hasta el 73% en el caso de los niños negros. Recuerde, un niño nacido y criado fuera del matrimonio tiene más de cinco veces más probabilidades de sufrir la pobreza que un niño criado en una familia intacta.

Volver a forjar una cultura del matrimonio necesita una reforma normativa con el fin de reducir las penalizaciones que sufre el matrimonio en los programas de asistencia social. También exige un tipo de restablecimiento de las relaciones que debe ocurrir a nivel personal, mediante la labor de las iglesias y de iniciativas comunitarias como “First Things First”, en Chattanooga, TN, que forja las habilidades necesarias para una relación. Estas y otras iniciativas para vencer la pobreza deberían hacer que nos involucráramos personalmente en el empeño de ayudar a restaurar vidas, familias y comunidades.

Fomentar el trabajo y restablecer el matrimonio “serían un mejor plan de batalla para erradicar la pobreza de Estados Unidos que gastar más dinero en programas fallidos”, comenta el investigador sénior de la Fundación Heritage Robert Rector en el Wall Street Journal de hoy, “Y ayudaría a alcanzar el objetivo de Lyndon B. Johnson de ‘sustituir su desesperación por la oportunidad’”.

NBC's & MSNBC's Hate tales...11 de los Mejores Placeres que existen!!!...So Obama only pays 18% of Income TAX? and income inequality?

2014-01-08T08:19:00.000-06:00

History of Hate: Five Years of Falsehoods at NBC News

by John Nolte 7 Jan 2014

Everyone acted surprised when we learned yesterday that after a couple of disastrous months, MSNBC is defiantly refusing to change their editorial process. But why would they? For years now, MSNBC and NBC News have both become a culture of left-wing hate and fraudulent editing. The only thing new, as you will see below, is that the frequency of the fraud and hate is increasing.

What I've assembled here isn't anything close to comprehensive, but it is a revealing top ten:

1. In August of 2009, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer sliced and diced a photograph so it wouldn't look like a black man attended a Tea Party carrying a firearm. Brewer then blasted the Tea Party as racist.
2. In May of 2011, on the air, MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz referred to conservative talk radio star Laura Ingraham as a "right wing slut."

3. In August of 2011, MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz maliciously edited video to make it look as though then-presidential candidate Rick Perry had described Barack Obama as a "big black cloud."

4. In April of 2012, NBC News maliciously edited a 911 call to make it sound as though George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin.

5. In June of 2012, on her MSNBC show, longtime NBC star Andrea Mitchell attempted to manufacture a Romney gaffe with a fraudulent edit.

6. In January of 2013, MSNBC fraudulently edited video to make it look as though one of the Sandy Hook parents was heckled by gun rights activists.

7. In August of 2013, MSNBC hired rageaholic Alec Baldwin to anchor a weekly show just weeks after the actor took to Twitter to threaten a gay journalist using a series of homophobic tweets. Weeks after being hired, Baldwin was fired after another predictable incident involving the actor hurling anti-gay slurs.

8. In November of 2013, during what appeared to be a scripted segment, MSNBC anchor Martin Bashir took to the air to suggest someone teach Governor Sarah Palin a lesson by defecating in her mouth.
Through its Twitter account, MSNBC promoted this segment: "WATCH: Martin Bashir gives Sarah Palin a remedial course on the physical scars and humiliation of slavery."
Bashir eventually apologized and left the network.

9. In December of 2013, MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry and guests held Mitt Romney's adopted black infant grandson up to the entire world for ridicule.

10. In January of 2014, MSNBC's "Queen" Rachel Maddow went to extraordinary lengths to lie about the Koch brothers backing mandatory drug tests for Florida welfare recipients.

What we've seen from MSNBC the past couple of months is not new behavior.
Fraudulent editing, hate, name-calling, and smears is not an editorial failure at MSNBC/NBC News - it is a business plan.

11 Placeres que nos Encantan!

"Algunas, de hecho, son más simples, dulces y fáciles de alcanzar", apunta, y entrega ejemplos de lo que a ella personalmente le produce placer:

1.- Reír sin parar: según la sexóloga, el fenómeno de no poder recuperar el aliento de tanta risa no es algo que se dé seguido y, por lo tanto, cuando ocurre resulta muy placentero.

2.- El abrazo de un niño: "Nada se siente más perfecto o mejor que tener los brazos y las piernas de tu pequeño alrededor de tu cuerpo, y su cabeza enterrada en tu cuello. El mundo se vuelve lleno de paz y amor", asegura Fulbright.

3.- Despertar y volverse a dormir: ¿alguna vez te has despertado en la mañana pensando que tu reloj no sonó y es tarde para irte a trabajar, pero luego te das cuenta de que es sábado y puedes seguir durmiendo? Para la sexóloga, cuando eso ocurre es un "momento absolutamente delicioso".

4.- Saciar la sed: sobre todo cuando se hace con agua pura. "Nada rehidrata mejor que el agua, en especial cuando tu cuerpo lo ansía. Seguramente has estado en esa situación y sabes lo bien que se siente", asegura.

5.- Hundirse en una tina caliente después de pasar tiempo en el frío: sentir manos, pies, nariz y todo literalmente congelado, debe ser una de las sensaciones menos placenteras que existen. Sin embargo, saber que tienes la posibilidad de entrar en calor, lo hacen soportable. "Una buena ducha o tina caliente es generalmente la manera perfecta para hacer que la sangre fluya de nuevo", indica Fulbright.

6.- Recibir una inesperada ayuda financiera: ¿te ha ocurrido que te pones una chaqueta que estaba perdida al fondo de tu clóset o usas una cartera que tenías olvidada, y en su interior encuentras un flamante billete? Sin duda, tu primera reacción es sonreír sin parar, en especial si el dinero te llega cuando realmente lo necesitas.

7.- Meterse a la cama con sábanas limpias y frescas: a juicio de la sexóloga, se trata de una situación que no requiere mayor explicación. Simplemente -dice- "se siente celestial".

8.- Estar junto a tu pareja piel con piel, y sentirla de pies a cabeza: según Fulbright, no importa que ese momento de intimidad no pase a mayores, sino que el sólo hecho de estar en brazos de la persona que amas, "es una de las pocas cosas que nos hacen olvidar que el resto del mundo existe".

9.- La satisfacción de haber tenido una buena sesión de entrenamiento: el ejercicio físico estimula la producción de endorfinas, las que son conocidas como "las hormonas de la felicidad", ya que tienen efecto analgésico y otorgan sensación de bienestar. Así, poner el cuerpo en movimiento puede, en efecto, provocar placer.

10.- Saber que la persona de quien estás enamorada, también te ama: cosquilleo, mariposas en el estómago, la sonrisa que no se borra del rostro. Son múltiples los efectos que genera el amor entre dos personas y que, según la sexóloga, hacen que "todo en el mundo se sienta bien".

11.- Conseguir un objetivo esperado: no importa si es grande o pequeño, la emoción que se siente al lograr algo tras haber trabajado duro, es inmensa, asegura la sexóloga.

Millionaire Obama: I Hate Income Inequality

President readies populist push despite personal affluence

1.7.2014

Albert Merrick

Back from his $4 million Hawaii vacation, President Barack Obama seems poised to sound the populist trumpet in an effort to turn the page on 2013’s disastrous Obamacare rollout.

Many pundits are speculating that Obama, seeing the popularity of liberal populists like New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, will use the current debate over unemployment insurance to engage in more divisive rhetoric:

The Obama administration has set the stage for a push that could rekindle cries of class warfare -- calling for renewed long-term unemployment benefits, a minimum wage increase and a campaign against what Democrats call "income inequality."
Ahead of his multi-week, holiday vacation in Hawaii, President Obama pushed Congress to move forward on extending federal unemployment benefits that weren't included in the budget deal Senate Democrats and House Republicans struck to fund the federal government for the next two years. The White House has scheduled an East Room event on Tuesday in which the president will appear with people who lost that insurance.

On Tuesday, that's precisely what Obama did, trotting out unemployed people to push for another boost to unemployment benefits, and citing income inequality as the rationale.

One potential challenge for the President’s prospective populist push is his own family’s affluence. Despite the President’s public lowering of his own salary, the Obamas' tax returns show a family whose incomes would routinely place them in the highest bracket, with lucrative income streams outside of the White House. Last year, however, the Obama family paid an effective tax rate of only 18 percent.

Media Omits climate change mission of Antarctica rescued group!!!....while Gore and Climate Change CEO's are running loose...and the GOP to sopport and attend March for Life!

2014-01-07T06:55:00.000-06:00

Mainstream Media Omits Climate Change Mission from Antarctica Ship Rescue

by Frances Martel 6 Jan 2014 314 post a comment

Global warming experts adrift in Antarctica since Christmas have finally been rescued, as the valiant efforts to save the Russian ship Akademik Shokalskiy were documented throughout the mainstream media.

Yet one major detail – what the ship was doing in Antarctica at all – seems to have eluded almost every major media outlet.

Breitbart News previously reported that the New York Times's account of how the Russian ship was finally freed from a large chunk of ice after attempts by a Chinese icebreaker failed mysteriously omitted the original purpose of having 25 professors on board a ship in Antarctica in the first place.
However, the Times was not anywhere near alone in covering only the details of the rescue without any look into why the crew needed rescuing.

CNN's earlier reports on the ship coincide with this week's news that the crew on the ship was finally saved by an American icebreaker ship, both mentioning that the crew onboard the Akademik Shokalskiy were, indeed, "on a climate change research ship." It stands out among media sources in pointing this out. The Associated Press, for example, mentions only that the Akademik Shokalskiy was a "research ship." The Washington Post version of the AP story claims the ship was in Antarctica "re-creating Australian explorer Douglas Mawson’s 1911-13 voyage to Antarctica." NBC News went with this story, too, as did Reuters – omitting any mention of climate change research. ABC News went with no mention of any motive for the ship's being down in the Antarctic at all.

Not every media outlet merely reported a straight story without that key fact; some attempted to find new angles to the story that distracted from the purpose of the voyage and the tragedy that befell it – during Antarctica's summertime, no less – and the terrible optics these implied for the climate change lobby. USA Today, for example, wondered whether there would be any impact on the Antarctic tourist cruise industry thanks to the media's covering a ship stuck in the region (it concluded that no, no cruise companies seem to be worrying about this). National Geographic went with the very bizarre twist of emphasizing the American rescue ship's horsepower compared both to the Russian ship and its initial Chinese icebreaker savior, admiring the sheer power to break ice of such a ship.

Only publications with "conservative" reputations like the New York Post and the Boston Herald addressed the climate change angle of the story. The Herald ran an editorial hoping that the incident would increase awareness of the continued growth of Antarctica's polar ice caps, a fact contrary to much global warming speculation. The Post also mentioned the record-breaking ice in Antarctica's summer and highlighted the ship's goal to document the hypothetical record-breaking melting the scientists expected to find.
The Akademik Shokalskiy first sent out its distress call that it was stuck in ice on Christmas morning and has been lodged there ever since until finally having its passengers saved this week. The Snow Dragon, a Chinese icebreaker, moved closer to the Akademik Shokalskiy but, rather than managing to break a path through which it could escape, the icebreaker got stuck itself. A helicopter the ship brought with it did manage to take some passengers out of the Akademik Shokalskiy before the full rescue. An American vessel, the Polar Star, arrived this week from Australia and is in the process of returning the passengers to Tasmania, where they are expected by mid-January. The ships themselves remain lodged in ice.

Climate Change Groups Seek New Leadership as Green Movement Loses Momentum

by Robert Wilde 6 Jan 2014 230 post a comment

It is unclear exactly why many climate change organizations are installing new executives, but it appears they are following the professional sports paradigm: When a team loses more than it wins, you can’t fire all the players, but you can fire the coach.

In the last decade the environmentalist have peddled harsh laws to install climate change strategies. However, many of these laws don’t pass, and new regulations fail to get traction. With global warming at a standstill for most of the last two decades and – much to Al Gore’s chagrin – plenty of ice still on the polar caps, more green groups are firing their CEO’s.Next to go is Maggie Fox, president and CEO of the Al Gore-founded Climate Reality Project, who will be gone in the Spring. The group was previously called the Alliance for Climate Protection and was part of the unsuccessful environmental movement’s drive to enact cap-and-trade legislation in 2009-10.

Two other large U.S. environmental companies are giving the boot to their leaders. National Wildlife Federation President and CEO Larry Schweiger is leaving in May, and Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke is also parting ways with his group in 2014.

Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, defended the changing of the guard. "It happens in every profession," he said; "An older generation gives way to a new one. In this case, a new generation of leaders needs to step up." However, this logic doesn’t fully explain why Greenpeace USA is canning Executive Director Phil Radford who is only in his late 30s, a clear member of that younger generation.

Republicans throw weight behind March for Life: RNC delays annual meeting so members can attend

by Dustin Siggins

Mon Jan 06, 2014 18:58 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 6, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a move that boosts social conservatives in an election year, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) has announced that he is delaying the RNC's annual winter meeting so he and others can attend the March for Life.
The Washington Times reports that approximately 20 of the 168 members of the RNC were planning to attend the March before Preibus' announcement. With Preibus' backing, the RNC is now renting buses to take attendees from downtown D.C. to the March, which takes place on Capitol Hill.

Hundreds of thousands

“I saw that there was a real interest among a significant portion of our members to attend and support the Rally for Life,” Priebus said in an email to The Times. “This is a core principle of our party. It was natural for me to support our members and our principles.”

The Republican Party has faced infighting between fiscal and social conservatives for several years. But despite this, according to RNC Deputy Press Secretary Raffi Williams, observers should not be surprised by the Chairman's decision. “The Republican Party will always be home for Americans who believe in social conservative issues,” he told LifeSiteNews.com in an e-mail.

This is the first time in years that the RNC has had its winter meeting in D.C. The meeting will now be delayed by a few hours on the first day. Williams said that “[the RNC] thought it only fitting for our members to attend the March to take part in the fight for the unborn.” The meeting will last four days.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The Times cited several members of the RNC who were influential in Preibus’s decision. Missouri GOP Chairman Ed Martin said that “[w]hen Reince got wind of what members were planning on their own, he emailed that he would shift our RNC schedule so we could attend...” Oklahoma member Carolyn McLarty said the change has its origins in an e-mail RNC member Kathy Hayden of Virginia sent to attendees about the March “about a week ago.” “Things have snowballed from there,” she said.

In a public statement, March for Life President Jeanne Monahan said her organization was “pleased that...Chairman Reince Priebus recognizes the importance of the life issue and has given it priority in the Committee's calendar.” She encouraged attendees “to show their support for life, and in particular for adoption, the theme of this year's event.”  

The March for Life has taken place for 40 years, typically on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Hundreds of thousands usually participate in the annual event.

Real facts vs Myths about the Minimum Wage...USA pierde influencia en el Mundo...The Obamacare disaster!

2014-01-06T04:04:00.003-06:00

Seven Minimum Wage Facts That Have Democrats Worried

by Wynton Hall 5 Jan 2014

With the midterm elections just over 300 days away, nervous Democrats reeling from the Obamacare debacle are hoping a big push to raise the minimum wage will be the silver bullet that will spare them from the historic losses they suffered in 2010.

Democrats and unions are busy working to get minimum wage initiatives on state ballots in the hopes of creating an electoral “minimum wage magnet” to attract low-income, minority, and union voters to the polls.
Seven minimum wage facts, however, may diminish Democrats' high hopes.

1. Just 2.8% of American workers earn at or below the minimum wage.

The U.S. Department of Labor says 1.6 million people make the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Another 2 million earn below that rate, such as restaurant servers who make tips in addition to a lower base hourly wage which, according to U.S. News and World Report, "in many cases actually puts them significantly above the minimum wage in reality, if not officially." That means in a nation of 317 million people, just 3.6 million (1.1%) make at or below the minimum wage. As a share of the U.S. workforce, just 2.8% of people working make minimum wage.
2. Half of all minimum wage workers are 16 to 24 years old.

According to the Department of Labor, "minimum wage workers tend to be young," and "about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less" are below age 25. Many of these are students working while in school or teenagers with part-time or summer jobs. That means half of the people most affected by a minimum wage hike are among those least likely to show up at the polls to vote, especially in a midterm election year. Indeed, minimum wage workers who are 16 and 17 years old are not even legally eligible to vote.

3. Labor workers already make well above the minimum wage.

Democrats and unions hoping labor workers will be energized by a minimum wage bump will be sad to know that laborers in every single sector of what the government calls "production and nonsupervisory employees"—like manufacturing, construction, mining, retail, transportation, etc.—already earn well above the minimum wage. In fact, in November 2013, the government reported that the average hourly labor wage across all industries was $20.31—a figure nearly three times the federal minimum wage. And as the unions themselves boast, a union member's annual salary is already $10,400 higher than a non-union worker.

4. Even those who support minimum wage hikes concede it could kill jobs.

Many economists and conservatives point to the body of economic literature that shows minimum wage increases kill jobs and simply encourage companies to pass along the added cost in the form of higher prices. But even ardent supporters like socialist Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant, who recently helped pass a $15 minimum wage in the SeaTac, Washington, concede the move could spawn job losses. "There may be a few jobs lost here and there, but the fact is, if we don't fight for this, then the race to the bottom will continue," said Sawant.

5. Minorities and the poor are hit hardest by the minimum wage.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously noted that "the most anti-black law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law." Higher wages mean employers seek higher, more skilled workers. That, said Friedman, puts those with disproportionately less education and experience at a significant disadvantage when looking to put their foot on the first rung of the employment ladder.

6. Even progressives concede the minimum wage is no panacea for America's economic woes.

President Barack Obama's former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Economic Advisers Christina Romer says, "economic analysis raises questions about whether a higher minimum wage will achieve better outcomes for the economy and reduce poverty." As a result, says Romer, "most economists prefer other ways to help low-income families." Similarly, progressive Daily Beast writer Jamelle Bouie says while he supporters the move, "the minimum wage is a Band-Aid for wage stagnation and income inequality" and "doesn't make up for our sluggish economy and weak labor market."

7. 21 states already have minimum wages that are higher than the federal $7.25/hr rate.

Just last week, 13 states boosted their minimum wage rates above the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25/hr. That means 21 states now already have minimum wages that exceed the federal rate.
For these reasons and more, Republicans see Democrats' minimum wage tactic as a desperate attempt to run from the Obama record.

"If I had a dollar for every time Democrats thought their issue of the week was going to be their pathway to victory, I would have enough money to pay taxpayers back all the money that was wasted on the broken Obamacare website," said Republican Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Andrea Bozek.

Querida, encogí a Estados Unidos: La influencia global americana con Obama

Helle C. Dale

Una encuesta publicada recientemente por Pew Research, “El lugar de Estados Unidos en el mundo”, indica que el enfoque de Obama hacia los asuntos exteriores ha tenido un efecto profundamente negativo en el modo en el que los americanos ven su papel en el mundo.

Lejos de ver la “la refulgente ciudad en la colina” expresada por los líderes políticos americanos, desde William Bradford a Ronald Reagan, los americanos consideran que, en la actualidad, su influencia como nación a nivel mundial está en declive. “Por primera vez en unos estudios que datan desde hace cerca de 40 años, hay una mayoría (53%) que dice que Estados Unidos desempeña un papel menos importante y poderoso como líder mundial que el que desempeñaba hace una década”, indica Pew.

Entre los hallazgos más sorprendentes del estudio de Pew, llevado a cabo desde el 30 de octubre al 6 de noviembre entre 2,000 adultos, destaca el que la proporción de americanos que piensa que la influencia de Estados Unidos está en declive se ha incrementado en 12 puntos, llegando a duplicarse desde 2009, el primer año de mandato de Obama. No resulta sorprendente, indica Pew, que “Un porcentaje cada vez mayor quiere que Estados Unidos ‘se preocupe de sus propios asuntos a nivel internacional’ y preste mayor atención a los problemas internos”.

Incluso son más los encuestados que dicen que Estados Unidos está perdiendo el respeto internacional. Su número casi se equipara con el del segundo mandato del expresidente George W. Bush (71% en mayo de 2008), aunque las cifras de Bush se vieron afectadas por el desapego general a su “estilo de cowboy” de Texas y por dos guerras que fueron impopulares entre la opinión pública extranjera. En el caso del presidente Obama, llegó al cargo inmerso en una ola de benevolencia internacional, recibiendo el premio Nobel de la Paz incluso antes de ocupar el cargo.

Sin embargo, los tiempos han cambiado. La estrepitosa caída de este año en la confianza ha estado causada por la torpe política de actuación respecto a la guerra civil siria, el intento de apaciguar el programa de nuclear de Irán y las deferencias con los líderes políticos de Rusia y China.

Por sorprendentes que sean las conclusiones de Pew, en realidad no deberían constituir ninguna sorpresa. Al fin y al cabo el presidente comenzó su mandato en el cargo con una gira mundial para pedir perdón. Los críticos de la política exterior de Obama han argumentado durante años que para el plan del presidente para este país, es crucial un menor impacto a nivel global, una consecuencia natural de su visión política. Entre quienes han expuesto este argumento se encuentra Dinesh D’Souza, autor de “Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream, published before the 2012 election”.

La puesta en acción de la doctrina Obama supone nada más y nada menos que un ariete apuntado hacia el poderío americano y con éste, los cimientos del sistema global posterior a la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Aunque los americanos se están dando cuenta por fin de esta escalofriante revelación.

Harking back to the worst of the New Deal.

Jan 13, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 17 • By JAY COST

Despite its clunky rollout, Obamacare continues to move forward. Many of the problems with the website have been fixed, at least on the “front end” that the consumer sees. The government, meanwhile, has reported nearly 2 million enrollments between the federal and state exchanges. This number is well below the 3.3 million expected—and it is almost surely an overestimation, considering the potentially high levels of nonpayment by enrollees and the remaining problems on the “back end,” where the insurance companies interact with the government. Still, it suggests that the program is here to stay for the time being.

Supporters of the law are breathing a huge sigh of relief, but their respite may be short-lived. Already there are hints of bigger problems with the law—bad ratios of healthy to sick enrollees, limited networks of doctors and hospitals, paltry drug formularies, and more. And there are more problems to come, symptoms of a deeper malady inherent in the law: It is ill-suited to our Madisonian system. Obamacare seeks to micromanage a vast sector of the American economy, when our government was designed purposely to prevent that sort of control. When central planners during the New Deal ignored the limitations placed on our pluralistic government, the results were disappointing and often perverse. The flaws already evident in the Obamacare system suggest that history may be repeating itself.

The progressives of the early 20th century were a diverse group of activists, but one thing they had in common was a taste for telling people what to do. Early progressive thinkers like Herbert Croly were enthusiastic about grand, government-directed endeavors to make America a better place. And that was the subtext of Theodore Roosevelt’s famed Osa-watomie speech: He wanted to co-opt Lincoln’s wartime coercion for peaceful social engineering.

The problem the progressives encountered is that our Madisonian system is incompatible with their grand ambitions. If the progressive left was bent on telling people what to do for their own good, just that sort of curb on individual freedom was one of the Framers’ biggest fears. For a decade, the Founding generation had been bossed around by a distant and unsympathetic British government, and then—after throwing off the shackles of colonialism—they found themselves, under the Articles of Confederation, at the mercy of ignorant, capricious, yet effectively omni-potent state legislatures. The subtext of Federalist 51 is a promise from Madison to the people: Nobody is going to tyrannize you under this new government. In Madison’s scheme, the government would empower a broad spectrum of interests to check one another, thus breaking and controlling what he called in Federalist 10 “the violence of faction.”

Of course, this has not stopped the government from finding novel ways to boss people around. Even so, the Madisonian system has often thwarted central planners who think the world would be a better place if only the country would follow their dictates.

This was a lesson the progressives had to learn the hard way during the New Deal. Today when people think of the New Deal, they are wont to recall Social Security or the minimum wage. But those were actually part of the second New Deal, which focused on granting new rights or powers to different groups. The first New Deal had more to do with controlling almost every aspect of American economic life, and it was an epic disaster that even the staunchest FDR cheerleaders are hard-pressed to defend.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933 was the first major program of the New Deal, and it was straightforward: The government would pay farmers not to farm in the hope that this would cut down the glut of agricultural products, raise farm prices and wages, and thus promote prosperity. Yet in practice it failed in surprising and far-reaching ways. It was in Dixie that the AAA wrought the most harm, decimating the economic standing of poor farmers, many of them black. Wealthy landowners manipulated the payment program so as to stiff tenants, purchase farm equipment, and send unskilled laborers crowding into the big cities looking for work. When reformers in the Agriculture Department tried to do something about this, they were unceremoniously sacked to keep congressional bigwigs like Senate majority leader Joseph Robinson of Arkansas happy. CONTINUE READING

Same-Sex marriage is "Anthropological Regression"... the Military struggling to accommodate its political correctness!!! ...Closing in on Abortion...finally!

2014-01-05T08:57:00.001-06:00

Pope Francis Affirms Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Anthropological Regression'

by Dr. Susan Berry 4 Jan 2014

A Maltese bishop said that in a private conversation with Pope Francis about same-sex marriage and adoption of children, the pontiff affirmed to him that same-sex marriage is “an anthropological regression.”

According to the National Catholic Register, Auxiliary Bishop Charles J. Scicluna of Malta said in an interview in Avvenire, the Italian bishops’ newspaper, that he had expressed to the pope his concern about proposed legislation in his country to permit same-sex couples the right to adopt children.
“The Pope showed his sadness at this development, especially on the question of adoption,” said Scicluna.

I told him that the promoters [of the bill] quote his words: “If a person is gay and seek the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge?” but they don’t quote his words from 2010 when he was still Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The Pope repeated the phrase of his letter of 2010: “It's an anthropological regression."

In 2010, when Pope Francis was archbishop of Buenos Aires, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio referred to same-sex marriage as an “anti-value and an anthropological regression.”

Similarly, in a conversation with Rabbi Abraham Skorka published in the book On Heaven and Earth, Francis said same-sex marriage is a weakening of the institution of marriage – that has existed for thousands of years – and is “forged according to nature and anthropology.”

Scicluna, who acted as a justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the new Maltese socialist government, elected last March, vowed to advance the causes of gay activists, including same-sex unions.

The bishops of Malta have responded to the proposed legislation by affirming Catholic doctrine which states that while homosexual activity itself is sinful, “pastoral closeness to everyone, including homosexual people,” is required.

Similar to the report given by Scicluna regarding use of Pope Francis’ words to support the same-sex lobby in his country, the Chicago Tribune reported in November that two Catholic Illinois state representatives, House Speaker Michael Madigan and Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, cited the pontiff’s words to justify their decision to vote in support of same-sex marriage in their state.

Despite Pope Francis’ continued affirmation of Catholic doctrine regarding same-sex marriage as “anti-value and an anthropological regression,” in December, gay magazine The Advocate named Pope Francis its “Person of the Year.”

As Breitbart News reported, The Advocate cited the pope’s same words, “If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?” to justify its decision to depict Pope Francis in sharp contrast to his predecessors, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
The Advocate referred to Pope Francis’ words as a “stark change in rhetoric” that are a sign that “LGBT Catholics who remain in the church now have more reason to hope that change is coming.”

Women Can't Do Pull-Ups, Soldiers Don't Fit into Uniforms, and Other Unspoken Truths About Unfit America

by Daniel J. Flynn 4 Jan 2014

The Marine Corps has delayed implementation of its new fitness plan requiring women do three pull-ups because a majority of female recruits failed to pass the standard. Why not delay the roll out of women in combat instead?

“I don’t think it’s a very high bar,” Marine Capt. Ann G. Fox told the New York Times upon the February announcement of closing the gap between male and female physical fitness tests. “I think the test should be the same as the men 20 pull-ups. People train to what they’re tested on.”

The fact that 55 percent of female recruits failed the pull-up portion of the fitness test failed by just one percent of male recruits suggests that the disparity involves something beyond training to the test. Decreeing the integration of combat units is an easier task than decreeing upper-body-strength equality. The Marines could vanquish the Barbary Pirates and the guardians of Chapultepec Castle. They can’t defeat biology.
The delusional egalitarianism behind the new fitness standard obscures a much greater problem facing military readiness: recruits of both sexes increasingly falter at basic fitness tests at which their predecessors once excelled. “What we were finding was that the soldiers we’re getting in today’s Army are not in as good shape as they used to be,” Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling told the New York Times in 2010. “This is not just an Army issue. This is a national issue.”

Indeed, it is. Children, whether because of a thinning of their ranks or the specter of neighborhood molesters, rarely engage in unsupervised outdoor play any more. Hordes of kids riding bikes, playing stickball, or shooting hoops is as much of an anachronism as listening to eight-tracks. Kids seemingly play sports on the computer more than they play sports with their friends. Gym class and recess feel the squeeze from other schoolhouse priorities. The virtual world of the internet steals time from the actual world in backyards and playgrounds. Rougher sports, particularly football, have been strangely crusaded against at a time when the bellies rather than the brains of young people remain the paramount public health concern. A society paranoid of bodily injury fails to grasp that the most dangerous activity is inactivity.

Paradoxically, America watches more sports than at any point in history as children participate in sports, at least on a spontaneous, neighborhood level, in fewer numbers than at any point in memory. This, combined with dietary habits that imagine Mountain Dew and Red Bull as a new food group, has had terrible consequences for the armed forces—and America. Whereas the federal government judged about one in twenty teens obese four decades ago, they dub almost one in five teens obese today. Fatty Arbuckle and Fats Domino would surely need new nicknames had they risen to fame in the 21st century.

But like the pull-up test that failed, the military have flunked their fitness tests rather than their fitness test-takers.

• The Army unveiled a new program in 2010 featuring fewer sit-ups and distance running and more stretching and balancing in order to curb injuries and accustom increasingly weak and flabby recruits to exercise. “We know kids today are less fit,” one of the new fitness regimen’s designers told the New York Times. “We have to adjust.”

• Air Force fitness standards implemented in 2013 no longer assign automatic failures to Buddha bellies (men with 39-inch waists or women with 35-inch waists).

• Plastic surgeons report an uptick in military personnel seeking liposuction to pass branch body-size mandates.

• The number of soldiers discharged by the Army for fatness increased tenfold in the last five years.

• “Too Fat to Fight,” a report issued by 100 retired admirals and generals, noted that more than a quarter of 17- to 24-year-olds—the recruiting demographic for the armed forces—are too fat to serve.

The military can’t remake women as men. America can reorient its fitness priorities for its children and transcend collective neuroses regarding the outdoors and body contact. Our phobias about sending our kids outside have resulted in greater threats than even the neighborhood boogeyman. One such realized threat, hardly the most ominous, is a decline in military readiness.

The Marine Corps deserves blame that their female recruits can’t do pull-ups as much as it deserves blame for the failure of its male recruits to have babies. But they’ll continue to make the mistake of correcting this mistake. Marines adapt and overcome. But there’s no overcoming Mother Nature. There’s only adapting to her.
Unfortunately, in a world of digital distractions and super-sized meals, adapting to Mother Nature has never been so universally regarded as maladaptive.

More pro-life laws passed in last two years than in the previous decade, pro-abortion study finds

by Kirsten Andersen Fri Jan 03, 2014 15:00 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion think tank with connections to Planned Parenthood, 2013 was a banner year for pro-life legislation, capping a three-year trend that saw more laws passed limiting abortion than in the previous 10 years combined.
According to the group's year-end report, 205 new abortion restrictions became law in the last three years, 70 in 2013 alone, making last year second only to 2011 as the most pro-life year across the state legislatures since Roe v. Wade.

In the decade 2001-2010, only 189 similar restrictions were enacted. “This legislative onslaught has dramatically changed the landscape for women needing abortion,” the report’s authors stated. “The overwhelming preponderance of legislation concerning abortion was aimed at restricting access to the procedure.”

The report went on to attack four types of pro-life laws that the authors said “dominated the legislative scene during 2013: abortion bans, restrictions on abortion providers, limitations on the provision of medication abortion, and restrictions on coverage of abortion in private health plans.”

In particular, the group objected to two early abortion bans passed by Arkansas and North Dakota, states that they accused of “overtly flouting the standard established by Roe v. Wade.” In Arkansas, the state legislature overrode the governor’s veto to enact a ban on all abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy. In North Dakota, a “fetal heartbeat” law banned all abortion after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected, something Guttmacher’s researchers admitted “generally occurs at about six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period.” Both laws are currently being challenged in court.

Additionally, the group lamented the introduction of 11 separate pain-capable unborn child protection bills, three of which passed during 2013 (in Arkansas, North Dakota and Texas). Nine states now have such laws, which ban abortions after 20 weeks based on mounting scientific evidence that babies at that stage of development have nervous systems developed enough to recognize and feel pain – an assertion the report’s authors dismissed as a “spurious belief.”

Guttmacher’s researchers also complained about increasingly tough safety regulations around the country aimed at holding abortion facilities to the same standards as other outpatient surgical facilities. The report’s authors call the improved safety standards “TRAP laws” (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers), and say the new regulations are “onerous and irrelevant” and “designed to discourage medical professionals from providing abortion and make it impossible for clinics to remain open.”

A total of eight states tightened restrictions on abortion centers last year, many in the wake of a string of shocking court cases, clinic closures, and undercover videos showing the lax or nonexistent safety standards that appear to be the rule at such facilities – including West Philadelphia’s “House of Horrors,” where abortionist Kermit Gosnell both killed and maimed patients, as well as murdering babies born alive after botched procedures, a crime for which he is now serving three consecutive lifetime sentences.
Another target of Guttmacher’s ire was a trend toward limiting or banning so-called “telemed” abortions, in which abortionists prescribe dangerous abortion drugs by video conference or phone, without a physical exam and with no in-person follow-up.

“Despite the fact that telemedicine is rapidly gaining acceptance as a way to expand access to [abortion],” the group’s authors wrote, “over the course of the year, seven states (Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas) enacted laws effectively banning the use of telemedicine for medication abortion. In addition, the Iowa Board of Medicine adopted regulations prohibiting the use of telemedicine for medication abortion.”

The group also blasted states for moving to require abortionists to follow FDA guidelines when prescribing abortion-inducing drugs, which limit the prescription of abortifacients to the first 49 days of pregnancy and require a physical examination by a doctor. The reporters called the FDA protocol “outdated” and complained that it was inconvenient for abortion-minded women, both reducing the window of time for them to obtain chemical abortions as well as forcing them to make “an extra trip to the clinic” to ensure their safety.

Other pro-life laws objected to by Guttmacher’s researchers included bans on insurance coverage and public funding for abortion, parental consent laws, waiting periods, ultrasound, and counseling requirements, and even a conscience clause passed in North Carolina allowing health care facilities and medical professionals to refuse to participate in abortions. The group even complained about laws aimed at stopping sex-selection abortions, calling such laws a “problem-and-solution mismatch.”

Women who consumes Oral Contraceptives have 9.5 times higher rates to breast Cancer!!! ...but woman who had an abortion are 626% more likely to have it!!! WOW!.... VIVA para el presidente Correa de Ecuador

2014-01-04T13:32:00.000-06:00

Women who had an abortion are 626% more likely to have breast cancer: Indian study

by Thaddeus Baklinski

Fri Jan 03, 2014 15:51 EST

NEW DELHI, January 3, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Women who have had an abortion are 6.26 times more likely to develop breast cancer than women who have no such history, a new study in India has found.
A report published in the current issue of the Indian Journal of Cancer suggests that abortion makes the breast's muscle tissue (epithelium) more likely to act as a cancer-producing agent. “It has been suggested that abortions leave the breast epithelium in a proliferative state with an increased susceptibility to carcinogenesis,” it says.

Perhaps more unnerving, that was not the greatest cancer risk facing women.

Women who consume oral contraceptive pills have a 9.5 times higher rate of breast cancer than women who do not use the drugs, researchers said.

"We found long-term use of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) higher among those suffering from breast cancer compared to healthy individuals," said lead researcher Dr. Umesh Kapil of the department of gastroenterology and human nutrition at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi.
In the report, Dr. Kapil explained that cancer is a hormonally mediated disease and that breast cancer is caused by repeated exposure of breast cells to circulating ovarian hormones.

He said long-term use of OCPs, which contain estrogen and progesterone, may be increasing the risk of breast cancer by causing a hormonal imbalance. His research suggests a strong relationship between use of oral contraceptive pills and the disease.

The study also looked into the association of other reproductive factors that affect the prevalence of breast cancer, and found that early onset of menstruation, higher age at marriage, higher age at first and last child birth, lower duration of breastfeeding, higher number of abortions, history of oral contraceptive pill use, and a family history of breast cancer are all associated with a significant increase in breast cancer occurrence.
The researchers found that mean age at first menstruation in cancer patients was about 13 years, as compared to about 14.5 years in the healthy controls. They observed that this difference was statistically significant.

The report noted that first pregnancy "induces irreversible changes that either render the breast tissue itself less susceptible to induction of cancer or reduced the carcinogenic stimulus to the breast."

The researchers found that women who had an age of marriage more than 20 years old had an almost three times higher risk of breast cancer, while the age at first childbirth was found to be associated with a twofold higher risk in women who had their first child after the age of 21.

Age at last childbirth of more than 27 years resulted in a 329 percent higher incidence of breast cancer.
"Lactation also has a direct physical effect on the breast, such as changes in breast ductal epithelial cells leading to mechanical 'flushing-out' of carcinogens," the researchers said.

The study found that the risk of breast cancer increased 14.9 times in women having mean duration of breastfeeding of less than 13 months. The average duration of breastfeeding in cancer cases was about 11 months, while in controls it was about 21 months.

The study was a hospital-based survey conducted in the tertiary care hospital in New Delhi. Three hundred and twenty newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in the AIIMS departments of Surgery/Surgical Oncology were matched with an equal number of healthy individuals, which constituted the control group.

The average age of the women was 45.5 years. A majority of the participants lived in urban areas. All the women were married, and the majority of both groups were housewives. About 46 percent of the cases and 36 percent of the controls belonged to lower-middle socioeconomic status.

The AIIMS research team concluded that, "the results of the present study reveal a strong association of reproductive factors with breast cancer in the Indian population."

The full text of the AIIMS study titled "Reproductive factors and breast cancer: A case-control study in tertiary care hospital of North India" is available here.

El presidente de Ecuador arremete contra la ideología de género y el aborto

El presidente de Ecuador, Rafael Correa dedicó la última emisión programa semanal de radio y TV, a fustigar la ideología de género, a la vez que defendió al feminismo, entendido como lucha por la igualdad de derechos, que no significa la «igualdad total», precisó, aludiendo a quienes afirman que no existe una diferenciación sexual «natural» sino que todo es «construcción cultural». Correa también volvió a mostrar su oposición al aborto.

03/01/14

(Eldiario24/InfoCatólica) Aunque el dirigente ecuatoriano expresó respeto hacia quienes defienden estas teorías, rechazó que «traten de imponer sus creencias a todos».

«Que no existe hombre y mujer natural, que el sexo biológico no determina al hombre y a la mujer, sino las 'condiciones sociales'. Y que uno tiene 'derecho' a la libertad de elegir incluso si uno es hombre o mujer. ¡Vamos, por favor! ¡Eso no resiste el menor análisis!», exclamó el Presidente.
«Esas no son teorías, sino pura y simple ideología, muchas veces para justificar el modo de vida de aquellos que generan esas ideologías. Los respetamos como personas pero no compartimos esas barbaridades», aseguró.

Adoctrinamiento en las escuelas

Correa advirtió además que se está adoctrinando en esa ideología (que calificó de «peligrosísima») en muchas escuelas: «No traten de imponerlo al resto, y no se lo impongan a los chicos, porque hay gente que está enseñado eso a nuestros jóvenes».

En octubre pasado, Correa había amenazado con dimitir si el Congreso ecuatoriano aprobaba el aborto. Ahora, se declaró partidario de la familia natural, aun a costa de parecer «cavernícola» y «conservador», aclaró, abriendo el paraguas a las críticas que sabe que recibirá: «Creo en la familia, y creo que esta ideología de género, que estas novelerías, destruyen la familia convencional, que sigue siendo y creo que seguirá siendo la base de nuestra sociedad».

Ser de izquierdas sin estar a favor del aborto y en contra de la familia

Consciente de las críticas que recibirá por colocarse a contramano del pensamiento dominante en el progresismo, Correa señaló que ser de izquierda no implica apoyar el aborto o estar en contra de la familia tradicional. «Esa es otra 'novelería': quién no se adscribe a esas cosas, no es de izquierda. ¿Qué es eso de que si uno no es proaborto no es de izquierda? –desafió Correa-. Entonces, ¿si Pinochet está a favor del aborto, es de izquierda? ¿Y si el Che estaba contra el aborto, entonces era de derecha?», preguntó también.

«Esas son cuestiones morales, no ideológicas», sostuvo, contrariando a una izquierda iberooamericana que, casi mayoritariamente, milita por la despenalización del aborto, en nombre del «derecho» de la mujer a «decidir» sobre su propio cuerpo.

El pasado 13 de diciembre, el presidente de Ecuador se había reunido sin embargo con representantes de los grupos LGTB (Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales), con cuyos representantes se había reunido el día 13 para asegurarles que se opondría a su discriminación laboral o en otros ámbitos, pero sin que ello implicase considerar matrimonio a sus uniones.

War on MEN destroying culture....is Obama a Blindsided president?...is Media anti-Christian?

2014-01-02T08:25:00.000-06:00

Camille Paglia: War on Men Destroying American Culture

by Dr. Susan Berry 1 Jan 2014

In October of 2012, Salon veteran, art historian, culture critic, and provocateur Camille Paglia returned to Salon for an interview in which she raved about Bravo’s Real Housewives series because, to her, the episodes were “authentic old-time soap opera,” a television genre she once adored and has since pronounced “dead.”

Hailing Real Housewives as “archetypal bitch fests,” Paglia said she had read that Gloria Steinem hates Real Housewives of New Jersey, and was ready to protest the show.
“Well, there’s the big difference between Steinem and me,” Paglia said. “She sees the show as a distortion of women, while I see it as a revelation of the deep truth about female sexuality.”

Right there is the proof of why feminism has faded. Those second-wave feminists had a utopian view of women — they constantly asserted that anything negative about women is a projection by men. That’s not what I see on “Real Housewives”! It’s like the Discovery Channel — sending a camera to the African savannah to watch the cheetahs stalking the gazelles! What you’re seeing is the primal battles going on among women. Men are marginalized on these shows — they’re eye candy, to use Obama’s phrase, on the borderlines of the ferocity of female sexuality.

In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, Paglia, now 66, demonstrated that she has not strayed from her role as the self-described “notorious Amazon feminist” who is quick to lambaste the movement and its orthodoxy.
Paglia also remains an enigma to many Americans who are exposed mostly to the “utopian” feminists in Washington, D.C. she more or less rails against.
Bari Weiss of the WSJ, who interviewed Paglia, said of the experience:

Talking to her is like a mental CrossFit workout. One moment she's praising pop star Rihanna ("a true artist"), then blasting ObamaCare ("a monstrosity," though she voted for the president), global warming ("a religious dogma"), and the idea that all gay people are born gay ("the biggest canard," yet she herself is a lesbian).

Weiss observed, however, that the topic that gets the greatest rise out of Paglia is how attempts to dismiss the biological differences between men and women have influenced the collapse of Western civilization.
The diminished status of military service is only the start of the decline of the culture, according to Paglia.
"The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service—hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. That is a recipe for disaster," she says. "These people don't think in military ways, so there's this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we're just nice and benevolent to everyone they'll be nice too. They literally don't have any sense of evil or criminality."

Consequently, cultural decline can be seen everywhere, from dysfunctional Washington to women’s fashion in its overemphasis on sexiness.
Weiss points out that Paglia, who dresses in androgynous style, has been told that she believes “women are at fault for their own victimization.”

Not so, says Paglia, as she explains her concept of “street-smart feminism.”
“I believe that every person, male and female, needs to be in a protective mode at all times of alertness to potential danger. The world is full of potential attacks, potential disasters.”
Paglia disparages the mushiness that has become rampant in American culture, beginning as early as kindergarten.

"Primary-school education is a crock, basically. It's oppressive to anyone with physical energy, especially guys," she says, and observes how difficult it is for boys in schools that have discontinued recess.
"They're making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters."

Paglia is especially tuned in to this situation now that she is raising her 11 year-old son with her ex-partner, artist and teacher Alison Maddex, who lives nearby. Paglia sees that “female values,” such as sensitivity, socialization, and cooperation, are fostered and put up on a pedestal in schools over creative energy and the teaching of hard facts.

She notes that it only gets worse in colleges and universities.
"This PC gender politics thing—the way gender is being taught in the universities—in a very anti-male way, it's all about neutralization of maleness,” Paglia told Weiss. "Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There's nothing left. There's no room for anything manly right now."
Paglia, though, is not merely feeling sorry for men. The point is that the belittling of masculinity is causing women to suffer as well, leaving them to become “clones” that are destined for “Pilates for the next 30 years.”
The result has been disastrous for American society, she argues.

"Our culture doesn't allow women to know how to be womanly," adding that online pornography is increasingly the only place where men and women in our sexless culture tap into "primal energy" in a way they can't in real life.

The question, however, is whether American culture can rebound. For Paglia, a big part of the cure is returning to an emphasis on industrial brawn and what were once traditional male trades such as construction, electricity, and plumbing.

“Michelle Obama’s going on: 'Everybody must have college.' Why? Why? What is the reason why everyone has to go to college? Especially when college is so utterly meaningless right now, it has no core curriculum" and "people end up saddled with huge debts," argues Paglia, who believes the drive for universal college is "social snobbery on the part of a lot of upper-middle-class families who want the sticker in the window."
Paglia’s ideal feminist role models were women like Amelia Earhart and Katharine Hepburn who were independent, savvy, and capable of competing with men without emasculating them. She parted ways in the late 1960's with the utopian feminists who did not share “her vision of ‘equal-opportunity feminism’ that demands a level playing field without demanding special quotas or protections for women.”

Still the “Amazon feminist,” Paglia remains critical of Steinem, Naomi Wolf, and Susan Faludi for a brand of feminism that views gender as nothing more than a social construct.

Similarly, Paglia is critical of the National Organization for Women (NOW) for making abortion the outstanding women’s issue. By denying the role of nature in women’s lives, she says, these types of feminists have made the movement “antiseptic” so they could protect their conventional lifestyles, believing that they “have it all.”

Despite her criticism of the feminists who would deny the biological distinction between the sexes, Paglia thinks the movement can be saved if feminists would abandon the “nanny state” mentality that grew into political correctness.

According to Weiss, Paglia says the women’s movement needs to get back to "serious matters, like rape in India and honor killings in the Muslim world, that are more of an outrage than some woman going on a date on the Brown University campus.”

'Blindsided' President: Obama's Loose Grip on the Reins of State

by Scot Kendall 1 Jan 2014

2013 was anything but a banner year for President Obama.

A peppering of failures and scandals marked the first year of the second term of the "most transparent administration in history." These scandals came in a variety of shapes and sizes, but they all shared one prominent feature.

That is the amount of knowledge Obama claimed to have of them before they happened – none.
In fact, it seems as if Obama has been practicing a technique of systematic denial of responsibility, claiming that as each new story of his administration's incompetence breaks, he himself is only learning of it the same way we are – through the news.

This indites him, at the least, of poor leadership. At worst, it suggests criminal dishonesty.
His technique goes at least as far back as the 2012 scandal of “Project Fast and Furious,” when the government sold traceable weapons which were later used to kill Americans. The administration claimed that Obama learned of this botched, unethical program through the media.

Next was the revelation that the IRS was illegally discriminating against Tea Party entities, which Obama learned about “when it came out in the news.” Obama insisted he “certainly did not know anything” then pushed reforms that retroactively made the persecution legal.

Other scandals included the NSA's phonetapping of allied powers (of which Obama “had no direct knowledge”) and its intrusion into Associated Press phone records (Jay Carney: “...we have no knowledge.”)

The capstone was Obama's plausible deniability concerning the Obamacare rollout, by which he was apparently “blindsided.”

This may raise questions about the quality of internal communication within the Obama administration, or it may raise questions about the president's honesty and his interpretation of the word “transparent.” Here at the start of a new year, let's have some fun speculating about what future stories Obama will be “blindsided” by, but which the average, educated American can probably see coming a mile away.

Could it be more having to do with Obamacare? Perhaps, when the administration's prediction that 78 million Americans will lose their employer-provided coverage comes true, Obama will claim that he, personally, had no knowledge of this effect of the law that bears his name. Perhaps when it becomes clear that Obamacare sign-ups are dangerously trending toward the old and sick, leaving insurance companies in an untenable position, Obama will claim that he “could not have predicted” that the law would require a taxpayer bailout of the insurance industry. As next year's open enrollment period begins in its now post-November-election time, voters will see skyrocketing premiums but be unable to rescind their already cast ballots. Perhaps the outcry over this will also “blindside” the president.

Indeed, if the media should break a story that Iran has developed a nuclear weapon, that Benghazi was a planned al Qaeda attack, or that the NSA's snooping goes beyond our worst fears, how plausible will Barack Obama's deniability be?

Sure, there are some things for which we should be profoundly thankful to the media if it manages to successfully communicate them to the president. If it succeeds, it will do so where trillions of dollars of government apparatus has failed.

One of these is the simple observation that the national debt doesn't go away on its own. It's doubtful that anyone would care whether Janet Yellen or the Washington Post passes this information along to Obama, as long as it reaches him. Likewise, any newspaper that can teach Obama what Kathleen Sebelius looks like gets our firm stamp of approval.

Let's hope that 2014 sees the “blindsided” president (whom the GOP has called the “Bystander President”) learning from his mistakes and taking a more active role in the governance of his country and the doing of his job. As the year unfolds, we'll all be keeping a close watch.

¿Tienen los medios noticiosos americanos un sesgo anticristiano?

Maria Kelso

En Prodigal Press: Confronting the Anti-Christian Bias of the American News Media (Prensa pródiga: Haciéndole frente al sesgo anticristiano de los medios noticiosos americanos), el periodista y escritor Warren Cole Smith explica cómo la visión progresista del mundo ha impregnado los principales medios de comunicación de Estados Unidos y cómo esa visión anticristiana del mundo está influencia a la sociedad americana.

“Los medios de comunicación de masas tienen una posición dominante en nuestra cultura actual y tienen un profundo impacto en cómo pensamos”, comento Smith en un reciente evento de la Fundación Heritage.
Según Smith, en el siglo XIX, muchos de los periódicos de Estados Unidos más conocidos profesaban abiertamente su cristianismo. Smith explicó que incluso el fundador del New York Times era un cristiano que se oponía al aborto en sus editoriales y en la sección de noticias de su periódico.

Smith afirmó que, durante los últimos 150 años, la ideología progresista y los cambios en la política, la tecnología y la cultura han hecho mella en los medios informativos de Estados Unidos, creando un fuerte sesgo anticristiano.

“Hoy en día, el Times editorializa de manera regular a favor del matrimonio homosexual y del aborto”, indicó Smith.

Y “recientemente, el columnista del Times Thomas Friedman equiparó al ‘Tea Party’ con Hizbolá. Su colega en el Times, Joe Nocera, lo superó diciendo: ‘Los republicanos del ‘Tea Party’ han desatado una yihad contra el pueblo americano’”, explicó Smith.

Smith cree que se debe atraer a los cristianos, “Creo que el periodismo es la guerra aérea de nuestro tiempo. …Sigo pensando que aunque puede que nuestro número sea escaso, con la ayuda de Dios, seremos suficientes”.

Autor de numerosos libros, Smith es editor asociado de la revista WORLD, editor y la redactor de WORLD news service, una empresa de comunicación dedicada a presentar historias de modo fiel y desde una perspectiva cristiana, además de colaborar en uno de los libros de texto más ampliamente utilizados en las facultades de periodismo de todo el mundo, Public Relations.

What is going on with Benghazi?...Steve Jobs y el excepcionalismo Americano...POD CAST: 2013 and the Discrediting of Liberalism

2014-01-01T09:29:00.000-06:00

9:08 AM, Jan 1, 2014 • By THOMAS JOSCELYN

During an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick was asked about the connections between Muhammad Jamal’s network and the Benghazi attack.

Jamal, as I documented in a response to Kirkpatrick’s Times piece, was clearly operating as part of al Qaeda’s international network. And according to multiple reports, including in the New York Times itself, Jamal’s network is suspected of taking part in the Benghazi attack.

This reporting contradicts Kirkpatrick’s thesis that only “local” Libyan actors were involved and that neither al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists, nor any other internationally connected terrorist groups, took part in the September 11, 2012 assault.

Cooper asked Kirkpatrick if the Jamal ties showed an al Qaeda link to Benghazi and about the Times’s own reporting on this connection. Kirkpatrick responded:

I don't believe that group was involved. I think that the reporting in our paper was citing some congressional officials saying they thought this Jamal group might have been involved. And the congressional officials in turn were citing a report in the Wall Street Journal and that report seems to me to the best of my knowledge to have come from Egyptian intelligence. And at the end of the day, what it asserts is just that this character Jamal may have run a training camp someplace and people who had been at that training camp may have been involved in the attack. So it’s…to my mind a bogus connection and also a tenuous connection and it is certainly not a connection that the New York Times has ever put its weight behind. Continue Reading

Steve Jobs y el excepcionalismo americano

Dr. Edwin J. Feulner

Steve Jobs, que a la demasiado temprana edad de 56 años, era la refutación viva de todo lo que los progresistas nos dicen constantemente acerca de nuestro país: Que estamos quedándonos atrás y que vivimos ahora en un “mundo post-americano”, como tenía por título uno de los libros favoritos de Obama.
Como le dirá cualquiera que alguna vez haya usado un producto de Apple o cuya vida se haya visto mejorada por las innovaciones que nuestro sistema ha producido en solo una década (lo cual equivale a decir todos nosotros), Jobs y los innovadores como él representan esa cualidad inconmensurable que la izquierda encuentra especialmente abyecta — el excepcionalismo americano.

La idea cultural de la izquierda es que las penalidades y la mediocridad no son solo nuestro futuro sino probablemente lo que nos merecemos — por ser demasiado imperialistas, consumistas, desperdiciadores, patriarcales o lo que se le ocurra. (Para una inacabable lista de nuestros males y culpas, por favor, vaya y escuche lo que dice la masa en la protesta “Ocupar Wall Street”). Uno debería comparar esa mortecina visión con las maravillas que Steve Jobs forjó.

Apple Computer, la compañía que Jobs fundó a la edad de 21 años con su amigo Steve Wozniak, estaba valorada al cierre de la bolsa ayer en $350,000 millones y pico, más de $100,000 millones por encima de Microsoft. General Electric, otro gigante americano, estaba en menos de la mitad de ese precio, $161,000 millones. ¿Ford, GM y Volkswagen? Respectivamente, $40,000, $35,000 y $42,000 millones. Eso le debería dar alguna idea de dónde estamos en el siglo XXI.

Ese concurso de talentos, cuánto vale una compañía, es el resultado de decisiones tomadas por millones de inversionistas que votan con sus ahorros (que es, para la mayoría de nosotros, el resultado del sudor de nuestra frente y nuestra protección ante un futuro incierto). Los inversionistas votaban por la compañía de Jobs porque los consumidores adoraban sus productos y los consumidores compraron los productos de Apple, no porque planificadores centrales les ordenaran hacerlo sino porque los veían como productos mágicos.

Desde las computadoras, pasando por la música, hasta el periodismo, Jobs cambió la manera en la que el mundo trabajaba y se entretenía. Casi nada de lo que hacemos hoy ha quedado libre de la influencia de Jobs y su compañía. Ciertamente Jobs cambió mi vida con mi primer Apple III y sus disquetes hace casi 30 años atrás, que costaba unos $6,000 y tenía una pequeña fracción de las capacidades de mi nuevo y estilizado iPad 2, con un precio de menos del 10% del costo de aquel temprano dinosaurio.

Los Macs, con su color característico y elegante diseño, transformaron la forma en que la gente pensaba acerca de las computadoras, que pasaron de artilugios que solo entendían o les gustaban a los fanáticos de la informática a cosas casi tan orgánicas como las manzanas mordidas de los omnipresentes logos de la compañía. El diseño y el pensamiento creativos fluían de forma natural desde un Mac, potenciando la creatividad y productividad que se han convertido en la característica distintiva de la economía americana, a pesar de nuestras presentes dificultades. En el mundo de la música, Jobs cambió la industria al hacerla digital.

En lo referente al periodismo y la lectura en general, hemos regresado de nuevo a donde empezamos: la tablilla de tiempos bíblicos. La elegante tableta que llevamos con nosotros donde quiera que vamos puede hacer lo mismo por nosotros y llevarnos, no importa dónde estemos, a cualquier lugar del universo que nuestra imaginación quiera visitar.

Todo esto es el resultado de la feliz coincidencia del genio de un individuo con un sistema. Jobs era una persona con un DNA especial, no hay duda. Pero este muchacho semiárabe que fue dado en adopción al nacer y que abandonó los estudios universitarios fue capaz de transformar la vida de personas de todo el mundo porque vivió y trabajó en esta nación.

La genialidad del sistema americano está compuesta del imperio de la ley, el respecto a la propiedad privada y la libertad del individuo para esforzarse en ser mejor que sí mismo y su vecino y cosechar la recompensa que resulta de aplicar sus capacidades innatas y su esfuerzo. Todas estas y muchas otras libertades están salvaguardadas en nuestra Constitución. Todo ello es parte de lo que nos hace un país excepcional.
Esto no quiere decir que no tengamos problemas. De hecho, estamos quedándonos atrás — no de otros países sino de la promesa que somos y de nuestro potencial. Nuestro gobierno gasta demasiado, intenta decirnos cómo vivir nuestras propias vidas y con su burocracia maniata al genio que le trajo Apple a Ud.. El gran y a veces irritante debate que estamos teniendo en nuestro país en este momento es resultado de que los americanos finalmente se han dado cuenta de la amenaza a la que se enfrenta nuestro sistema y están haciendo algo acerca de ello.

Esto no es lo que Ud. oye. Diariamente nos dicen los líderes del gobierno, los medios de comunicación y el mundo académico que somos tan excepcionales como cualquier otro país de los que componen Naciones Unidas, de Albania a Zimbabwe. Se nos dice que tenemos que hacer frente a nuestro declive como potencia y que el gran debate sobre las ideas que estamos teniendo es prueba de que “nuestra política no funciona”. Es típico lo que un columnista de un periódico de Manhattan ha puesto de título a su más reciente libro That Used to Be Us (Eso solíamos ser nosotros), palabras que, siento decir, son sacadas directamente de un discurso de Barack Obama.

Esto es un sinsentido. Puede que Steve Jobs haya donado a causas y políticos progresistas a lo largo de su vida, pero en ella ha demostrado la existencia del Sueño Americano. Como podría decirle cualquiera que haya hecho una búsqueda usando Google desde su iPad y luego lo haya publicado en Twitter, Steve Jobs y otros como él simbolizan el excepcionalismo americano todos los días.

Edwin J. Feulner
Presidente, Fundación Heritage

Hosted by Michael Graham.

4:35 PM, Dec 31, 2013 • By TWS PODCAST

The WEEKLY STANDARD podcast, with editor William Kristol with a look back at 2013 and how President Obama's liberalism fared this year.

This podcast can be downloaded here. Subscribe to THE WEEKLY STANDARD's

The Minimum wage...another leftist dream to marginalize the poor! A Popular Falacy...La Familia y su importancia!

2013-12-31T06:50:00.001-06:00

The Minimum Wage is Bad for the Poor by William Grafton

Do you remember when grocery stores had baggers floating between a few registers? They weren't in a hurry, they didn't cram a dozen items in one sack, and they would even help you out to your car. As a general rule, that job doesn't exist anymore. Window washers at service stations don't exist anymore.

A lot of little niceties of daily life just aren't included anymore. Most of us think, well, companies are just cutting back. They don't want to pay for those nice touches anymore. We're only partly right.

When I was in high school, I worked as a warehouse stocker and delivery driver for an electrical supply house. I made $4.25/hour and worked my tail off. There was enough work for 2-3 of us. The problem was that, well, that job wasn't worth much more than $4.25/hour. So, the company made do with one where 2 or 3 would have done a more thorough job.

That company doesn't hire high-school students anymore.

Later, when I was looking for other work, I had this and other jobs that I could list on my resume, to show that I knew what an honest days work was, that I had some appreciation for toil, or that I had skills with invoicing, stocking, or delivery. Many of today's youths won't have that opportunity to work, earn a wage, and gain valuable experience in the work-place.

Employers used to be willing to bring on a young adult and train them. To take someone with no experience, pay them a small wage and pay them more in skills and training and then bump them to a higher wage once they reached an earning capacity. This is becoming another rarity. You see, at a certain point, the cost to the employer got too high, the benefit of training someone from scratch was outweighed by the cost of paying them a minimum wage. So, now requirements for work are going up. You can't learn a skilled trade on the job, you have to know something coming in. Vocational schools are booming, trade schools are booming. Employment for the young is down. By the way, these vocational and trade schools are hideously expensive. Some costing more per semester than a full public university's tuition. And people are paying.

What this tells me is that these mentorships, apprenticeships, or low paying, learn as you go jobs have value much beyond their would be low wage, at least, for the holder of that job. For the employer, not so much. For the employer, it's normally a slight drag on production at first, that slowly yields some production gains until he has a viable employee. Some forms of mentorships and apprenticeships are still available under current laws, but require payment of a minimum wage. For employers faced with this added burden, many have simply elected to stop apprenticeships and shifted the burden for receiving the training squarely onto their future employees.

If a career is a ladder, with each rung you climb giving you some foundation in skills and experience for the next rung you reach, then the minimum wage laws in this country have effectively removed the bottom rungs from the ladder. This is fine for everyone above that or marginally close to that level, but for those just starting out, it signals a lack of opportunity, a mandate that they must go out and pay for their own education and experience instead of learning through work.

Many people comport the minimum wage to a living wage or a minimum standard of living, but this ignores the reality. Greater than 98% of working people in this country make MORE than the minimum wage. This isn't because the government makes them do it. These are market forces at work. Which begs the question about that slightly more than 1%, who are they and why are they making so little.

That small group consists primarily of teenagers. High school and college students with little skills to offer performing jobs with little skills required. There is a lot of competition for these jobs. There are fewer of them each time the minimum wage is increased, and there are always plenty of kids needing to gain employment history. So, who will "suffer" if the minimum wage is abolished? Less than 2% of the workforce stands to have to compete on price for their job. More people competing will realistically force those wage points down. For many of these jobs, it's unlikely that the price point can go too low. People will make their own decisions about what their time is worth and employers will be allowed to find the price point and employment level that they are willing to pay. We would likely see a 10-20% dip in the wage level for these positions, but also are likely to see a reduction in unemployment for the young.

What about the rest of the workers? Wouldn't their wages be dragged down too? Ummm. No. There is no mandate that employers pay the wages they currently pay ABOVE the minimum wage. The only thing that would lower those wages is a slumping economy, a smaller job pool and increased competition for those jobs.

There is this irrational paranoia by people who support these massive government regulations that I will discuss in further detail in the near future, but it revolves around the idea that without the restraining hand of government, businesses would exploit us. My experience has taught me that it is more often that exploitation happens with the assistance of the hand of government restraining the individual from seeking alternatives. Ask yourself this question. If the restraining hand of government is necessary to keep our nation from spiraling into poverty and to keep employers from enslaving us all, why are greater than 98% of jobs paying more than the paltry amount government demands?

Minimum Wage - A Popular Falacy by Tracy A. Ryan

The essential fallacy rests in the assumption that employers have some arbitrary power to set wages. Tell them that the people they pay $5 per hour must now receive $10 and they can't simply smile and comply. Wages are not a function of employer whims. If they were why would any employer offer more than the legal minimum wage to any employee? Unless you're hiring a relative and trying to help them out rather than make a profit, you, as an employer, are compelled by the labor market to offer the market's determined "minimum" wage for whatever type of work you desire to be performed. You are in competition against other employers for the right to purchase the labor of qualified persons.

The labor market is not uniform. There are many types of labor and there are separate markets for each type. If the going rate to hire a full-time secretary with the computer skills you require is $1,800 per month, you're not going to get someone with those skills for half that amount. The supply and demand factors of the labor market are represented by the gross number of workers available in the numerous categories, (supply), and the level of consumer demand for the types of goods and services that are ultimately to be supplied, (demand). There is quite a bit of interplay and adjustment as workers may retrain to enter a more lucrative field, or leave a specialized field for one, such as bookkeeping, that is in more general demand.

Setting a minimum wage above the market wage for any sort of employment must by logic reduce the level of that employment. There has been no increase in demand or reduction in supply. A new law has come about, nothing more. To pay more in wages than the market value for any type of labor means the employer loses money on the transaction. Employers hire people to make money off of their labor not to provide a charitable benefit. Remember that the price the employer can sell his goods and services for is set by the market for those goods and services. Minimum wage laws have no effect on that price. For an employer to attempt to raise prices to cover minimum wages increases will mean a decrease in sales volume and profitability. It doesn't matter that all his competitors face the same problem. Consumers' habits aren't affected. Industries that hire the most number of unskilled workers become less profitable in relationship to all other ventures. The market adjusts for this factor by reducing the size and employment levels in the effected industry.

The public misses the relationship between reduction in employment and minimum wage increase because they are unwilling to look beyond the end of their noses. When minimum wages tend to be low and increases small the effect on existing employees is marginal. This is because an employee's value to a firm generally increases over time as they acquire job experience. A counter clerk at a fast food restaurant with three years on the job is not equivalent to one hired yesterday. With the higher minimum wage law the new employee would not have been hired at all. Since he was never hired he never shows up in the tables or statistics. After all, liberals will argue, unemployment didn't go up when they raised the minimum wage.

People also falsely assume wages for current minimum wage earners would plummet if the minimum wage law was eliminated. Why? If someone is worth 6 dollars an hour in the labor market there's no reason why he would be offered any less because someone who is only worth 4 dollars an hour can also be employed. If it's not profitable to the firm to have someone earning more than 4 dollars an hour doing a certain piece of work why would they be paying them 6 to begin with? They'd be better off leaving the work undone altogether, which is what minimum wage laws cause them to do. An employee's value is based on the state of the labor market and his own productivity. Minimum wage laws do not change either factor. Hawaii has the highest effective minimum wage in the world. One should remember that our prepaid health law is a part of the cost of employing anyone who works over 20 hours per week. Add workers comp, TDI, SUTA, FUTA, employer FICA, etc and you're over 10 bucks an hour before you bat an eyelash. Small wonder Hawaii's welfare to work program has the worst success rate in the Nation.

Since markets set wages and employers can't pay higher than market wages without suffering loss, minimum wage laws cannot increase anyone's wage. Yet such laws can do many harmful things; chief among them being the legal prohibition against any work done for pay for which the market value is less than the minimum set by law. These laws have a disturbing impact on non-profits, many of whom would like to compensate their volunteers in some way, but can't without running into the steep requirements made of employers. Do you ever wonder why it's legal for volunteers to put in long unpaid hours, but a crime to pay them less than the minimum wage?

The higher the minimum wage is set the greater the number of unemployable people. Living as we do in a civilized society some provision for their basic needs as consumers must be substituted for the productive earnings the government has denied them from having. This support comes at the expense of others, reducing their standard of living as well. Plus the loss to the community of the work that could be done by this legally unemployable population means a reduction in the supply of goods and services available in the market and a consequent additional reduction in the standard of living. The minimum wage is truly a lose-lose proposition. Direct handouts to people in need actually do far less harm than interfering with the price mechanisms of the labor market. The minimum wage is an entirely vain attempt to raise purchasing power in the absence of market forces to support that effort.

'''Tracy A. Ryan is the head of the Hawaii Libertarian Party.

Carta del obispo de Segovia, Ángel Rubio, sobre la familia

Carta del obispo de Segovia, Ángel Rubio, sobre la familia, ante la fiesta de la Sagrada Familia

En el corazón de la Navidad, la Iglesia quiere que celebremos esta fiesta de la Sagrada Familia. Los pastores y los magos descubrieron al Niño Jesús con María su Madre y con San José su padre; es decir, lo encontraron en seno de una familia constituida por un padre y una madre, enteramente como las otras familias de su tiempo.

Para el Hijo de Dios hecho hombre su familia tuvo una importancia idéntica a la que tiene la nuestra para nosotros. Fue el marco más idóneo para nacer, crecer y desarrollarse como persona. Por eso, Jesús, como hombre, fue lo que fue su familia porque la familia nos marca. La familia —lo queramos o no— deja su impronta en las personas, y somos, normalmente, lo que hemos aprendido y vivido en su seno.

Son bien conocidos los problemas que en nuestros días asedian al matrimonio y a la institución familiar, debido a una cierta mentalidad ambiental hedonista, permisiva e insolidaria. La familia atraviesa dificultades importantes por las presiones que sufre, particularmente con la plaga del divorcio, que cobra especialmente sus víctimas en los hijos; con la mentalidad “antivida”, con la impregnación de una cultura de muerte y de miedo al futuro que reduce el sentido de acogida de la vida, impide su concepción o la elimina antes de nacer; y con la insuficiente protección en los aspectos económico, social y de vivienda o con el injusto tratamiento que en estos campos muchas familias se ven sometidas. Especial dificultad en estos momentos son algunas legislaciones en favor de ciertas uniones, que atentan contra el matrimonio y la familia, vulneran la más elemental dignidad y verdad del ser humano, conducen a la quiebra de humanidad o a ahondar en ella, y ponen en peligro, en consecuencia, la estabilidad de la misma sociedad.

Por eso es tan sumamente necesario y apremiante presentar con autenticidad el ideal de la familia según el designio de Dios, basado en la unidad y fidelidad del matrimonio, abierto a la fecundidad, guiado por el amor. Son estos aspectos los que corresponden mejor a las exigencias del corazón humano, aunque contrasten con las propuestas del mundo.

Todos, sin excepción, estamos obligados a promover y fortalecer los valores y exigencias de la familia. Esta debe ser ayudada y defendida mediante medidas sociales apropiadas. La sociedad tiene la grave responsabilidad de apoyar y vigorizar la familia, y su fundamento que es el matrimonio único e indisoluble. La misma sociedad tiene el inexorable deber de proteger y defender la vida, cuyo santuario es la familia, así como dotar a ésta de los medios necesarios —económicos, jurídicos, educativos, de vivienda y trabajo— para que pueda cumplir con los fines que le corresponden a su propia verdad o naturaleza y asegurar la prosperidad doméstica en dignidad y justicia.No ayudar debidamente a la familia constituye una actitud irresponsable y suicida que conduce a la humanidad por derroteros de crisis, deterioro y destrucción de incalculables consecuencias. La actual legislación, que ni siquiera reconoce la realidad humana del matrimonio en su especificidad con una institución o figura jurídica adecuada, debe ser corregida y mejorada porque compromete seriamente el bien común. (cf. Conferencia Episcopal Española, La verdad del amor humano, 2012).

Pero el egoísmo, que triunfa en la vida matrimonial y familiar de España, tal vez como en ningún otro campo de las relaciones sociales, debe ser combatido también en el ámbito de la educación en general y, por supuesto, de la formación católica y de la atención pastoral matrimonial y familiar. El Papa Francisco ha puesto de relieve la trascendencia del problema al convocar, de modo casi urgente, nada menos que dos Sínodos de los Obispos consecutivos, en dos años, sobre la familia y su evangelización. Recientemente, en el encuentro con las familias en Roma, con motivo del Año de la fe, el Papa ha exhortado a los esposos a: «ponerse en marcha y caminar juntos. ¡Y esto es el matrimonio! Ponerse en marcha y caminar juntos, tomados de la mano, encomendándose a la gran mano del Señor. ¡Tomados de la mano siempre y para toda la vida! ¡Y haciendo caso omiso de esa cultura de la provisionalidad, que nos hace trizas la vida!».

+ Ángel Rubio Castro

Obispo de Segovia

Why we need Masculine and Feminine virtues? Are we ignoring the REAL biological differences?

2013-12-29T09:22:00.002-06:00

Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues

The cultural critic on why ignoring the biological differences between men and women risks undermining Western civilization.

By Bari Weiss connect

Updated Dec. 28, 2013Philadelphia

'What you're seeing is how a civilization commits suicide," says Camille Paglia. This self-described "notorious Amazon feminist" isn't telling anyone to Lean In or asking Why Women Still Can't Have It All. No, her indictment may be as surprising as it is wide-ranging: The military is out of fashion, Americans undervalue manual labor, schools neuter male students, opinion makers deny the biological differences between men and women, and sexiness is dead. And that's just 20 minutes of our three-hour conversation.

When Ms. Paglia, now 66, burst onto the national stage in 1990 with the publishing of "Sexual Personae," she immediately established herself as a feminist who was the scourge of the movement's establishment, a heretic to its orthodoxy. Pick up the 700-page tome, subtitled "Art and Decadence From Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson, " and it's easy to see why. "If civilization had been left in female hands," she wrote, "we would still be living in grass huts."

The fact that the acclaimed book—the first of six; her latest, "Glittering Images," is a survey of Western art—was rejected by seven publishers and five agents before being printed by Yale University Press only added to Ms. Paglia's sense of herself as a provocateur in a class with Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern. But unlike those radio jocks, Ms. Paglia has scholarly chops: Her dissertation adviser at Yale was Harold Bloom, and she is as likely to discuss Freud, Oscar Wilde or early Native American art as to talk about Miley Cyrus.

Ms. Paglia relishes her outsider persona, having previously described herself as an egomaniac and "abrasive, strident and obnoxious." Talking to her is like a mental CrossFit workout. One moment she's praising pop star Rihanna ("a true artist"), then blasting ObamaCare ("a monstrosity," though she voted for the president), global warming ("a religious dogma"), and the idea that all gay people are born gay ("the biggest canard," yet she herself is a lesbian).

Enlarge Image

Neil Davies

But no subject gets her going more than when I ask if she really sees a connection between society's attempts to paper over the biological distinction between men and women and the collapse of Western civilization.

She starts by pointing to the diminished status of military service. "The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service—hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. That is a recipe for disaster," she says. "These people don't think in military ways, so there's this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we're just nice and benevolent to everyone they'll be nice too. They literally don't have any sense of evil or criminality."

The results, she says, can be seen in everything from the dysfunction in Washington (where politicians "lack practical skills of analysis and construction") to what women wear. "So many women don't realize how vulnerable they are by what they're doing on the street," she says, referring to women who wear sexy clothes.

When she has made this point in the past, Ms. Paglia—who dresses in androgynous jackets and slacks—has been told that she believes "women are at fault for their own victimization." Nonsense, she says. "I believe that every person, male and female, needs to be in a protective mode at all times of alertness to potential danger. The world is full of potential attacks, potential disasters." She calls it "street-smart feminism."

Ms. Paglia argues that the softening of modern American society begins as early as kindergarten. "Primary-school education is a crock, basically. It's oppressive to anyone with physical energy, especially guys," she says, pointing to the most obvious example: the way many schools have cut recess. "They're making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters."

She is not the first to make this argument, as Ms. Paglia readily notes. Fellow feminist Christina Hoff Sommers has written about the "war against boys" for more than a decade. The notion was once met with derision, but now data back it up: Almost one in five high-school-age boys has been diagnosed with ADHD, boys get worse grades than girls and are less likely to go to college.

Ms. Paglia observes this phenomenon up close with her 11-year-old son, Lucien, whom she is raising with her ex-partner, Alison Maddex, an artist and public-school teacher who lives 2 miles away. She sees the tacit elevation of "female values"—such as sensitivity, socialization and cooperation—as the main aim of teachers, rather than fostering creative energy and teaching hard geographical and historical facts.

By her lights, things only get worse in higher education. "This PC gender politics thing—the way gender is being taught in the universities—in a very anti-male way, it's all about neutralization of maleness." The result: Upper-middle-class men who are "intimidated" and "can't say anything. . . . They understand the agenda." In other words: They avoid goring certain sacred cows by "never telling the truth to women" about sex, and by keeping "raunchy" thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops.

Politically correct, inadequate education, along with the decline of America's brawny industrial base, leaves many men with "no models of manhood," she says. "Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There's nothing left. There's no room for anything manly right now." The only place you can hear what men really feel these days, she claims, is on sports radio. No surprise, she is an avid listener. The energy and enthusiasm "inspires me as a writer," she says, adding: "If we had to go to war," the callers "are the men that would save the nation."

And men aren't the only ones suffering from the decline of men. Women, particularly elite upper-middle-class women, have become "clones" condemned to "Pilates for the next 30 years," Ms. Paglia says. "Our culture doesn't allow women to know how to be womanly," adding that online pornography is increasingly the only place where men and women in our sexless culture tap into "primal energy" in a way they can't in real life.

A key part of the remedy, she believes, is a "revalorization" of traditional male trades—the ones that allow women's studies professors to drive to work (roads), take the elevator to their office (construction), read in the library (electricity), and go to gender-neutral restrooms (plumbing).

" Michelle Obama's going on: 'Everybody must have college.' Why? Why? What is the reason why everyone has to go to college? Especially when college is so utterly meaningless right now, it has no core curriculum" and "people end up saddled with huge debts," says Ms. Paglia. What's driving the push toward universal college is "social snobbery on the part of a lot of upper-middle-class families who want the sticker in the window."

Ms. Paglia, who has been a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, sees her own students as examples. "I have woodworking students who, even while they're in class, are already earning money making furniture and so on," she says. "My career has been in art schools cause I don't get along with normal academics."

To hear her tell it, getting along has never been Ms. Paglia's strong suit. As a child, she felt stifled by the expectations of girlhood in the 1950s. She fantasized about being a knight, not a princess. Discovering pioneering female figures as a teenager, most notably Amelia Earhart, transformed Ms. Paglia's understanding of what her future might hold.

These iconoclastic women of the 1930s, like Earhart and Katharine Hepburn, remain her ideal feminist role models: independent, brave, enterprising, capable of competing with men without bashing them. But since at least the late 1960s, she says, fellow feminists in the academy stopped sharing her vision of "equal-opportunity feminism" that demands a level playing field without demanding special quotas or protections for women.

She proudly recounts her battle, while a graduate student at Yale in the late 1960s and early '70s, with the New Haven Women's Liberation Rock Band over the Rolling Stones: Ms. Paglia loved "Under My Thumb," a song the others regarded as chauvinist. Then there was the time she "barely got through the dinner" with a group of women's studies professors at Bennington College, where she had her first teaching job, who insisted that there is no hormonal difference between men and women. "I left before dessert."

In her view, these ideological excesses bear much of the blame for the current cultural decline. She calls out activists like Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf and Susan Faludi for pushing a version of feminism that says gender is nothing more than a social construct, and groups like the National Organization for Women for making abortion the singular women's issue.

By denying the role of nature in women's lives, she argues, leading feminists created a "denatured, antiseptic" movement that "protected their bourgeois lifestyle" and falsely promised that women could "have it all." And by impugning women who chose to forgo careers to stay at home with children, feminists turned off many who might have happily joined their ranks.

But Ms. Paglia's criticism shouldn't be mistaken for nostalgia for the socially prescribed roles for men and women before the 1960s. Quite the contrary. "I personally have disobeyed every single item of the gender code," says Ms. Paglia. But men, and especially women, need to be honest about the role biology plays and clear-eyed about the choices they are making.

Sex education, she says, simply focuses on mechanics without conveying the real "facts of life," especially for girls: "I want every 14-year-old girl . . . to be told: You better start thinking what do you want in life. If you just want a career and no children you don't have much to worry about. If, however, you are thinking you'd like to have children some day you should start thinking about when do you want to have them. Early or late? To have them early means you are going to make a career sacrifice, but you're going to have more energy and less risks. Both the pros and the cons should be presented."

For all of Ms. Paglia's barbs about the women's movement, it seems clear that feminism—at least of the equal-opportunity variety—has triumphed in its basic goals. There is surely a lack of women in the C-Suite and Congress, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a man who would admit that he believes women are less capable. To save feminism as a political movement from irrelevance, Ms. Paglia says, the women's movement should return to its roots. That means abandoning the "nanny state" mentality that led to politically correct speech codes and college disciplinary committees that have come to replace courts. The movement can win converts, she says, but it needs to become a big tent, one "open to stay-at-home moms" and "not just the career woman."

More important, Ms. Paglia says, if the women's movement wants to be taken seriously again, it should tackle serious matters, like rape in India and honor killings in the Muslim world, that are "more of an outrage than some woman going on a date on the Brown University campus."

Ms. Weiss is an associate editorial features editor at the Journal.

TPD...Three Paragraphs Daily!

To many "CINO's" - Catholics in name Only - abortion is a legal right, say whaaaat?....Israel: Exito de un pais si "nada"....Is Charles Barkley right?

Abortion is a ‘legal right’: Hamilton Catholic chaplain running for Trudeau’s Liberals

Israel: El éxito de un país que no tiene ‘nada’

Barkley: ‘We As Black People, We Have A Lot Of Crooks’

'There's a reason they racially profile us at times'

Setting a 14 yr. Girl on fire for refusing abortion...what?...Ahora CHILE caminando pa'tras como el Cangrejo!!!...Racist police never shoot down on him: meet the Hypocrite Kenny Britt!

Man found guilty of murdering 14-year-old girl, setting her on fire, for refusing an abortion

Chile: Dándole la espalda a la libertad

Carlos Alberto Montaner

‘Hands Up Don’t Shoot’ Player Arrested Multiple Times

Rams’ Kenny Britt miraculously managed never to get shot by “racist” police despite several arrests.

Gay activists = sex abuser profiles?...Capitalismo o Progresivismo (Comunismo con paciencia)?...Men and abortion!

Co-founder of gay activist group HRC charged with sex abuse of 15-year-old boy

Capitalismo y voracidad

My newborn son helped reawaken in me the horror of abortion: young father

Pope to EU: Protect life!!!....Por que en Latinoamerica no Inventamos?...Obama and Race relations: Better or Worse?

Pope to EU Parliament: Protect life, dignity and avoid ‘angelic forms of purity’

¿Por qué los latinoamericanos apenas inventamos o innovamos?

Ben Carson: Race Relations Were BetterBefore Obama Was Elected

"I think that things have gotten worse because of his unusual emphasis on race."

A president that supports "post-birth abortion" cites Scripture!!!...Quien crea los Empleos? muchos creen que es el Gobierno! ...Oh Bill Cosby, who is or was this man?

‘Repugnant’: Fox News, Huckabee outraged that president who backs post-birth abortion cites Scripture

¿Quién crea los empleos?

Ex-model says Cosby hid behind image of Cliff Huxtable

Pope Francis must clarify Church teachings on Sexuality...America es un pais de Inmigrantes!!!....Women in the US take rights for Granted!

Cardinal Burke: Church teaching on sexuality must be clarified, and only Pope Francis can do it

¿Por qué América da la bienvenida a los inmigrantes?

La versión en inglés de este artículo se publicó en Heritage.org.

Hirsi Ali: Women In US Take Rights For Granted

Why is Europe pressuring Latin American countries to allow abortion?...Los politicos nos mienten y no pasa NADA!...A Christian Vision to Homosexuality.

Universal Periodic Review: Europeans pressuring Latin Americans to allow abortion

La mentira como arma política

Population Control : Sterilization Factory!...en Mexico será que todo es Corrupto?...to too many the Government gives us Rights...do they?

A sterilization story the population controllers do NOT want you to read

Entire villages rounded up

Assembly line sterilization

Are you asking yourself these two questions? . . .

Corrupción: En México lo ha podrido todo

School Handout: 'The Government Gives Us Rights'

"[G]ive your loyalty to the U.S. government."

Be aware...Catholic teaching has not changed over Gay Marriage issue....America Must stand up for Hong Kong's Democracy....Cristóbal Colón un icono americano!

Why America Must Stand Up for Hong Kong's Democracy Movement

Cristóbal Colón: ¿Icono de Estados Unidos?

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

El lobby LGBT no es lo que de verdad quieren los Homosexuales....que hay detras de todo esto? ...Be brave, commit to your partner and be Loyal!

"It's a Setup": The Note that Saved a Marriage from Adultery at 30,000 Feet

Sometimes all it takes is a simple act of courage.

Just listen to the Pope and answer: Who am I?....Equal pay act: More B*S* from the progressives "communists with patience"....LGBT Historians: "No ONE is born Gay"

America's Crisis Isn't About Women's Wages. It's About Men's Wages.

Even LGBT Historians Admit No One Is 'Born Gay'

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

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

1. Subir el salario mínimo.

2. “Justicia salarial” obligatoria.

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

Progressives...yeah right, just communists with patience!...Obamacare's victory lap LOL....Una Cientifica Atea descubre que los Milagros Existen, ergo DIOS!

"Share" if you think Glenn is right about progressives. Watch the video here: http://bit.ly/1gAFOtw

While the Left was Taking a Victory Lap

for Obamacare, Majority of America Pointedand Laughed

Alabama Mom’s ObamaCare Horror Story Gives Ameri

Jacalyn Duffin, la científica atea que Dios eligió para que defendiera un milagro

Los santos y los milagros no parecen importarles a los científicos. ¿Qué la motivó a ocuparse de esto?

¿Usted es médico o una historiadora?

¿Cuando llegó la gran oportunidad?

¿Por qué?

¿Cuándo se enteró que se trataba de otra cosa?

¿El Vaticano la consultó para evaluar una canonización?

¿Para usted, una científica atea, era un milagro y para el Vaticano no?

¿Quién era la sanada por el milagro?

¿Algo más en particular?

¿Cómo?

¿Usted que es atea cree que se han producido más de 1.400 milagros?

¿Cree usted que Dios está haciendo milagros?

¿Nunca pensó en la conversión?

Putin vs Obama, is America Godless? Mmhhh....As always, reason and faith in line with Science: Obtaining Embrionic type stem cells from Mature cells!!!...Por que quieren dominiar las escuelas y mas importante a los alumnos, los socio-progressistas?

Putin: America Is Godless, Has Turned Away from Christian Values

Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the West, including the United States, for eschewing Christian values and opting instead for a “path to degradation.”

Scientists Create Embryonic-Type Stem Cells from Mature Cells

Just listen to the Pope and answer: Who am I?....Equal pay act: More BS from the progressives "communists with patience"....LGBT Historians: "No ONE is born Gay"

for Obamacare, Majority of America Pointed
and Laughed