No 987 “En mi opinión” Junio 29, 2015
“IN GOD I TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor
“Los tiranos usurpadores de las conquistas de los USAson soldados de satanas. Los que nos enfrentamos a ellos Somos los soldados de DIOS”
AMENPER: ¿Por qué tenemos que hablar de Política?
Nunca he aspirado ni aspiraré a un cargo público, procuro nunca hacer negocios con instituciones públicas, no tengo un político determinado que considero mi líder incontestable. Pero soy como decía Platón un animal político, me intereso y hablo de política creo que es parte de mi responsabilidad en mi vida y en la sociedad, hablar de política, interesarme en la política.
Aunque creo que en realidad todas la personas son como yo, el que dice que no piensa y que no tiene una opinión política o vive en otro mundo o está ocultando su manera de pensar.
Porque la política es la que genera la vida social, lo que debiera de ser el conjunto de reglas y valores y las instituciones que combinan juntos hombres y mujeres, la política es el factor que determina nuestro modo de vida. Creo que a los que tuvimos que emigrar de nuestro país de origen, no porque fuéramos políticos pero porque fuimos víctimas de la política no hay que explicarnos mucho el concepto, porque lo aprendimos de una manera triste.
Filosofía política comienza con la pregunta: ¿Cuál debería ser la relación de una persona a la sociedad? El tema trata de la aplicación de conceptos éticos en la esfera social y aborda así la variedad de formas de gobierno y existencia social que la gente podría vivir en – y, al hacerlo, también proporciona un estándar mediante el cual se analizar y juzgar las relaciones y las instituciones existentes.
La política predominante aborda los estados de asuntos existentes, y en la medida que es posible ser moral en sus descripciones, busca un análisis positivo de asuntos sociales – por ejemplo, cuestiones constitucionales, voto, el comportamiento, el equilibrio de la energía, el efecto de revisión judicial y así sucesivamente. La filosofía política tiene sus inicios en la ética: en preguntas tales como qué clase de vida es la buena vida para los seres humanos. Puesto que las personas son por naturaleza sociables, sólo existen unos pocos anacoretas de la sociedad que les gusta vivir solos, y hasta eso se ha politizado, llamando desamparados a individuos que se han negado a sí mismo el amparo que trae la esperanza y responsabilidad. A esto sigue a la pregunta sobre qué clase de vida es la adecuada para una persona entre la gente. Los discursos filosóficos sobre política así desarrollan, amplían y fluyen de sus fundamentos éticos. El lenguaje utilizado por los pensadores opuestos para describir la primacía política de su entidad (es decir, individuales o en grupo) altera a lo largo de la historia según otros competir o complementar conceptos; pero hoy en día la división mejor se caracteriza por los “derechos del individuo” versus los “derechos de grupo”, y estos a su vez resolver en cuestiones particulares y aplicadas sobre el papel cultural, racial, religiosa y orientaciones sexuales en perseguir un examen filosófico de la actividad política, sobre lo que es mejor para la sociedad.
Y esto es la diferencia en la política, la diferencia entre un socialista y un conservador. La autonomía, la autodeterminación y la responsabilidad individuo es la base del conservador
Los socialistas acusan a los conservadores de racistas, porque alegan que explicamos el comportamiento teniendo en cuenta la naturaleza de un grupo. Pero el punto de vista no es ese, todo lo contrario, son los socialistas los que usan el comportamiento racista en cuanto a la militancia clasista.
Cuando los conservadores atacamos a un hecho realizado por un grupo, responsabilizamos a los individuos que realizan el hecho, la militancia del grupo es individual. O sea que si un grupo de negros, o personas con cierta preferencia sexual o de origen hispano realizan un hecho que condenamos, se está atacando individualmente a los militantes que realizaron el hecho utilizando el nombre de un grupo, no puede haber derecho a un grupo a nombre de los derechos de los negros, los hispanos, y hasta de los homosexuales, cundo existe individuos dentro de esas clasificaciones de origen y conducta que no piensan como ellos, en la vida real no existe un grupo homogéneo como clase social.. .
Se puede y se debe condenar a una persona que comete un crimen racista, pero no se puede dar privilegios y beneficios a un grupo sobre el individuo.
La sociedad clara y simplemente es el conjunto de los individuos que la componen. Del comportamiento individual surge la naturaleza de la sociedad y su sistema político. Pero si el individuo es apático políticamente, si se abstiene de preocuparse por la política que rige la sociedad, entonces está rechazando sus derechos como individuo. Cuando veo a personas quejándose de sus problemas personales, si vamos analizando las causas de sus problemas sociológicos o económicos y hasta de salud, su raíz siempre está en la política. La política en un país democrático se trata de ser gobernado de acuerdo con los derechos de la individualidad del ciudadano.
If You Read Only One Post, This Is It: Boehner Got $5M , Ryan $2M, McConnell $9M, Why TPA Passed?
U.S. Troops Face Eating, Drinking Restrictions During Ramadan. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/us-troops-face-eating-drinking-restrictions-during-ramadan_979081.html
A top commander in southwest Asia reminded U.S military personnel stationed in Muslim countries in the Middle East of the restrictions placed on them during Ramadan. According to a report by the U.S. Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs, Brig. Gen. John Quintas, 380th Air Expeditionary Wing commander in Southwest Asia, said that the U.S. is “committed to the concepts of tolerance, freedom and diversity.” But he added that soldiers should “become more informed and appreciative of the traditions and history of the people in this region of the world… [R]emember we are guests here and that the host nation is our shoulder-to-shoulder, brothers and sisters in arms, risking their lives for our common cause to defeat terrorism.”
During the 30-day religious celebration of Ramadan, even non-Muslims are expected to obey local laws regarding eating, drinking, and using tobacco in public. Violators can be fined up to $685 or receive two months in jail. A spokesperson for United States Central Command [CENTCOM] said that “we are not aware of any specific instances of anyone being arrested” for such violations.
\For military personnel outside of U.S.-controlled areas, the only exceptions for the rules are for those “performing strenuous labor.” Such personnel are “authorized to drink and consume as much food as they need to maintain proper hydration and energy.” It is unclear what constitutes “strenuous labor” or whether additional exceptions might be made during a heatwave affecting some areas of the region that has taken hundreds of lives.
DAILY EVENTS FEATURED STORY
Justice John Roberts is No Conservative – Time for Congress to Repeal ObamaCare
Boehner: ‘No Decision’ to Repeal Obamacare with Reconciliation
One of my friends jokes that U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts is a liberal. I used to laugh him off – not anymore.
President George W. Bush’s legacy was hurt with the King v. Burwell decision by the Supreme Court to uphold ObamaCare. Chief Justice John Roberts, for a second time, saved ObamaCare using faulty legal analysis and a results oriented logic. This is further evidence that President Bush made a bad decision to nominate a stealth liberal lawyer to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Roberts is morphing into retired Justice David Souter right before our eyes. The parallels are stunning.
President George W. Bush’s dad, George H.W. Bush, nominated little known New Hampshire lawyer David Souter to replace retiring Justice William Brennan in 1990. Souter was pushed by President Bush’s Chief of Staff John Sununu and sold to the movement as a conservative. He turned out to be one of the liberal justices in my lifetime.
That seat now is considered a “liberal seat” and conservatives didn’t put up much of a fight when hard left Justice Sonia Sotomayor replaced Souter. It appears that a terrible decision by President George H. W. Bush has ceded a seat to liberals for, at least, another 30 years.
Now we have Chief Justice Roberts going the same direction tarnishing the legacy of President George W. Bush. He was sold to the conservative movement as a conservative, but he is turning out to be a strong ally of liberals. He has saved ObamaCare twice, even though the law was clearly unconstitutional and the subsidies in question were not lawful.
The biggest political loser in this decision was Governor Jeb Bush who can’t be trusted with Supreme Court nominations. The Bush family has packed the court liberals in conservative clothing. America can’t take the risk of another Bush making the same mistake.
There is an upside to the decision upholding ObamaCare – now Congress has no excuse not to repeal ObamaCare.
Republican leaders in the House and Senate were hoping that the Supreme Court would strike a blow at the heart of President Obama’s health care law when they acted illegally to grant subsidies to individuals purchasing coverage through the federal health insurance exchange in 34 states. They wanted the Court to do the heavy lifting.
Congress is America’s last hope to repeal ObamaCare.
Republicans promised to repeal ObamaCare using the House and Senate passed budget process called “reconciliation” to repeal the law. They made that promise to the American people earlier this year and they need to keep it.
The promises made by Republicans a few months ago during the budget debate are important because they were very public about the guarantee and there is no excuse not to fight.
The House Budget Committee produced a one pager earlier this year where they claimed that the Congressionally passed budget “Repeals Obamacare.” The document’s first bullet point relating to health care swore that the budget “Repeals Obamacare in full – including all of its taxes, regulations and mandates.”
The Senate Budget Committee posted a press release where they make a similar claim the budget “provides for Repeal of Obamacare to Start Over with Patient-Centered Reforms.”
It is time for some leadership from Congress and time for these guys to keep a promise.
There is a way to fully repeal ObamaCare using reconciliation – root and branch, and the Republicans need to do it ASAP. They need to learn a lesson from the government shutdown of 2013 – it worked. They may need to use the same hardball tactics to fight to defund or repeal the law.
After the government shutdown, establishment Republicans predicted massive losses if conservatives picked a fight and let the government shut down to prevent funding for ObamaCare. Leadership in both the House and the Senate were falling all over themselves to blame Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT), because they were terrified that the government shutdown was bad politics.
The actual result was the opposite – Republicans regained control of the Senate for the first time since 2006 and they expanded the majority in the House to the largest margin since 1928. The government shut down helped Republicans because it showed that some were willing to fight.
Remember when Sen. Rand Paul said that the “Republican brand sucks?” If they don’t even try to repeal ObamaCare using the budget process called reconciliation, then the brand will continue to suck.
If Congress does not immediately move to repeal ObamaCare and then defund ObamaCare if the budget strategy fails, then they will have broken a promise.
New leaders are needed moving forward.
Brian Darling served as Sr. Communications Director and Counsel for Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) from 2012-15. Before his tenure with Sen. Paul, Darling served in three different capacities with The Heritage Foundation. Follow him @BrianHDarling on Twitter.
AT THE PRESIDENT’S TABLE: Obama Hosts Two Israel-Haters at His Table Tuesday Night
He talks about peace and how Islam is a religion of peace. Tell that to all the families that have lost loved ones to ISIS.
President Barack Obama hosted two radical anti-Israel activists, Riham Osman and Batoul Abuharb of Houston, Texas, on Tuesday night. They both had the honor of sitting at Mr. Obama’s exclusive “President’s Table” at the annual White House Iftar dinner. Both have publicly stated that they consider Israel and its leadership to be sponsors of terroristic acts.
Riham Osman, seated at the “President’s Table” Tuesday night, is the communications coordinator for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood that has challengedthe U.S. designation of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups.
Osman herself has engaged in toxic rhetoric when it comes to the state of Israel.
In March, she described Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as sponsors ofterrorism.
On July 28, 2014, during Israel’s defensive war against Palestinian terror group Hamas, Osman claimed that the Jewish state “murdered 1,000 innocent civilians.” The same day, she opined that if “the devil was in human form,” it would “look, speak, and act like Netanyahu.”
By Rich Lowry
It’s telling that the South Carolina governor who called for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the state Capitol is a woman, an IndianAmerican — and a Republican.
The rush to efface the Confederate symbol from the South in the wake of the Charleston shootings, with Gov. Nikki Haley among the leaders, is a lagging indicator.
The region has been transformed over the past 50 years, from an institutionally racist backwater to a part of the American mainstream more alluring to African-Americans than less dynamic parts of the country.
Dylann Roof is many things: a racist and a terrorist, pathetic and hellishly cruel. But he is not a representative Son of the South.
The left has nonetheless been channeling a less tasteful version of former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s old dictum:
Never let a hideous massacre go to waste. It has pointed fingers at the GOP’s Southern strategy and at the South more generally, distorting the partisan history of the region and ignoring changes there since the 1950s.
Gerard Alexander of the University of Virginia, Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics and Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard all have written against the idea that the Southern strategy was racism incarnate.
There was undoubtedly a racial component to the region’s partisan shift, but among other things, the South simply got richer. It’s amazing what earning enough money to have a substantial tax bite will do to your politics.
The father of the Republican Southern strategy was that racist old coot Dwight Eisenhower, who — is it possible to wrap your head around the enormity? — wanted to begin to win some Southern electoral votes.
Ike won four Southern states in 1952 and five in 1956, when he won the popular vote in the region. And he did it while supporting civil rights.
How was this possible? The GOP had begun picking off the less uniformly Democratic areas of the New South.
As Alexander writes, the GOP’s Southern electorate “was disproportionately suburban, middle class, educated, younger, non-native Southern, and concentrated in the growth points that were, so to speak, the least ‘Southern’ parts of the South.”
So 1964, when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, wasn’t a point of radical departure. The Republicans steadily gained strength as the Old South figuratively and literally died off.
Republicans didn’t take a majority of Southern congressional seats until 1994. Not until 2010 did they gain unified control of the Alabama state Legislature.
The left doesn’t expend much energy complaining about the South’s contribution to the most important progressive electoral victories of the 20th century — the elections of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt — but obsesses over Republican strength in a region that, morally and politically, is light years from the Solid Democratic South of yore.
Of course, the South still lags in many ways, and there are parts of Southern exceptionalism that are distasteful.
Consider one key indicator, though: Blacks are voting in favor of the South with their feet by migrating from elsewhere in the country, in a reversal of the Great Migration of the 20th century.
The region is no longer characterized by its system of vicious racism but its diversity.
According to the Population Reference Bureau, “Among large metropolitan areas with a total population of 500,000 or more, the least segregated metros were located in the faster growing South and West.”
It no longer deliberately blights the prospects of blacks but affords them opportunities not available elsewhere.
The urban expert Joel Kotkin ranked metropolitan areas by home ownership, entrepreneurship and median household income and concluded: “Today, Dixie has emerged, in many ways, as the new promised land for African-Americans.”
This is an American triumph. One of the most extraordinary things about the reaction to the horror of Charleston on the ground was the unity and civility that characterized it — another wonder of a transformed South that, in many ways, is better than its hidebound and blinkered critics.
‘FINISH THE MISSION’: Former Black Panther Chairman Demands the Killing of the ‘Slave Masters’
In an angry call to arms just a block away from the site of the Charleston massacre, former New Black Panther Party chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz told a group of about 200 African American Charlestonians that they need to “finish the mission” of killing “slave masters” and their families.
He made the incendiary comments at the Save the Black Church rally held Tuesday night in Marian Square, close to the Mother Emanuel AME Church, where white racist Dylann Roof allegedly murdered nine black churchgoers.
Shabazz, who played a prominent role in the Baltimore and Ferguson uprisings, heads a group called Black Lawyers for Justice and boasts a long association with the controversial New Black Panther Party.
Shabazz’s comments began with the story of Denmark Vesey, who planned an unsuccessful slave revolt and helped found the Mother Emanuel Church.
The recent massacre at the church happened on the anniversary of the foiling of the revolt. As USA Today explained in an article on Vesey’s 1822 planned revolt, the events had important historic significance for the church:
Vesey reportedly preached in meetings in his home, telling members of the congregation that they were the New Israelites and that God would punish their enslavers with death.
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
“En mi opinión”