No 938 "En mi opinion" Mayo 2, 2015

No 938   “En mi opinión”  Mayo 2, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” LAZARO R GONZALEZ MIñO EDITOR

AMENPER: Como tener un buen sexo…

Lo siento por ustedes lo que han interpretado el título como algo pornográfico y esperaban leer algo más estimulante.  Pero de lo que quisiera hablar es de mis principios conservadores más que del acto sexual.

Como conservador creo en un gobierno que no se meta en mi vida privada, ya sea como me gano mi vida en mi trabajo, como pienso políticamente,  y sí también como llevo mi vida sexual y como enseño a mis hijos cuando tuve que explicarle que los niños no lo traen las cigüeñas.

Pero resulta que el gobierno, sobre todos los gobiernos totalitarios como los fascistas y los comunistas están interesados en su autoridad total hasta de cómo es nuestra sexualidad y cómo se la enseñamos a nuestros hijos, cree que ellos tienen más derechos a enseñar el sexo a nuestros hijos que nosotros. Porque después de todos los individuos somos inferiores al gran gobierno.

Desde los fascistas de Italia como Mussolini que creía que la malas  educaciónes sexuales 'minaba la virilidad de la nación, no sé los detalles ni por qué decía esto. Hitler con su pureza racial que predicaba el peligro de tener sexo con alguien que no fuera Ario, los comunistas con las libertad sexual usando el aborto como anticonceptivo para promover el control de la natalidad y, manteniendo las familias pequeñas, para "aliviar la carga de las madres trabajadoras,"  

Como un alivio también a la mujer, la. Suecia la posguerra animó a limitar el tamaño de las familias por todos los medios posibles, incluyendo el aborto. 

Suecia fue una influencia inicial para lo que hoy en día es nuestra política de gobierno con “Planned Parenhood” que es el eufemismo para clínicas de aborto a demanda, y la educación sexual en las escuelas, que enseñan la “diversidad sexual” o seas el sexo sin tabúes burgueses atrasados. "No podemos reconocer una educación sexual que marcas todas las relaciones extramaritales como pecaminosa,"” El coito entre personas del mismo sexo ha sido algo natural por siglos y es aceptable” “La edad para comenzar las relaciones sexuales es indicado por la naturaleza no por cierta edad cronológica creada por los hombres”" Esto es lo que se enseña en nuestras escuelas.

La información sobre el sexo que la mayoría de los padres tiene que darles a sus hijos adolescentes probablemente puede ser transmitida en menos de una hora. Después de todo el acto sexual y su resultado en la procreación es algo de lo más sencillo de la biología humana. 

Pero un vasto aparato de "educación sexual" está ahora en su lugar en las escuelas públicas estadounidenses — con todo el rol risible y moda teorizando que estamos oyendo de los círculos liberales autodenominados expertos sexuales que han creado un currículo que puede incluir detalles explícitos dirigidos a los niños adolescentes. Bienvenidos a nuestro actual régimen educación sexual, que cómo en los régimen comunistas dicen a nuestros niños que no se ocupen de lo que le dicen sus padres ya sea en cosas de políticas como de sexo, el gobierno es el que tiene la máxima autoridad  sobre quién debe enseñar a los niños sobre el sexo y cómo deberán actuar en todos los aspecto de la vida.

No quiere decir que no se hable de problemas en cuanto a peligros del acto sexual, como prevenir la propagación de las enfermedades venéreas, pero con los años, las razones de la educación sexual han oscilado más allá de los principios objetivos de control social o mejora de la salud, para convenirse como un arma como lo fue en las naciones comunistas que desarrollaron su propia forma de educación sexual en los años 60 para combatir los valores promiscuos de los países capitalistas que  ellos creían, infiltrarse en sus sociedades.

Los líderes occidentales influenciados por el liberalismo, también estuvieron particularmente interesados en introducir sexo Ed en el mundo en desarrollo para luchar contra la próxima "population bomb" en la década de 1970 y la hambruna que supuestamente seguiría.  Con influencia de la siempre presente Hollywood con películas que nos enseñaban como nos íbamos a comer los unos a los otros porque no habrían comida en ningún país del mundo y la vegetación se extinguiría.  La fecha favorita era el nuevo siglo el año 2000.. 

Quince años han pasado y la bomba no explotó — y las predicciones calamitosas se demostraron que estaban notablemente exageradas como lo es hoy en día el cambio climático- Pero prosigue  la lucha para contener a la población del tercer mundo, que quizás tenga su base en esa parte del mundo, pero, por favor eso no tiene nada que ver en nuestro país. Sabemos que la agenda es otra.

En 1994, la Conferencia Internacional sobre población y desarrollo se reunieron en el Cairo para empujar a "los derechos reproductivos" y educación, con fondos de la Fundación Ford . Los líderes de los países de Guatemala y las Filipinas se quejaron de que la agenda de la conferencia fue un asalto en su forma de vida. Primer ministro paquistaní Benazir Bhutto intentó una especie de defensa: "esta conferencia debe no considerada por las exuberantes masas del mundo como una carta social universal busca imponer el adulterio, el aborto, educación sexual y otras cuestiones parecidas en los individuos, sociedades y religiones que tienen su propia ética social."

Los socialistas son persistentes, hay veces que se lanzan sabiendo que no van a lograr el objetivo inicialmente, pero crean la semilla y saben que lo lograrán más tarde. Mientras nosotros estamos preocupados en nuestro trabajo y la vida diaria, su preocupación total es dirigida a implantar el totalitarismo del estado.

Las escuelas de hoy se rigen por una especie de programa y estrategia, con el objetivo de la liberación sexual a través de "educación". Planned Parenthood, por ejemplo, en sus consejos a las personas a cargo de sexo ed en las escuelas, insta a que sus clases de persigan un vasto programa que incluye "las actitudes sexuales y valores, sexual anatomía y fisiología, comportamiento sexual, salud sexual, orientación sexual y placer sexual." La lista (que sigue y sigue) visiblemente no incluye los juicios normativos por los cuales las iglesias y familias tradicionales siempre han abordado el tema.

Los que hemos vivido nuestra adolescencia en el pasado, cuando no existía la educación sexual, no podemos aceptar ni entender el hecho.  No creo que el Padre Martín en la escuela jesuita donde recibí mi educación de adolescente, hubiera podido educarnos mejor que la simpleza de la educación de nuestros padres (aunque hubiera sido interesante ver al Padre Martin explicando el tema).

De hecho los defensores de la educación sexual, respondiendo a los ataques a esto con respecto a que nuestros hijos cada día son más promiscuos nos "Ninguna investigación creíble", escribe, "jamás sufrió la afirmación conservadora que educación sexual hace que la gente joven más relaciones sexuales. De hecho, escribe, "estudiosos alrededor del mundo han luchado para mostrar cualquier influencia significativa de la educación sexual a jóvenes comportamiento sexual." Bueno, si es así, si los jóvenes no han aprendido nada, no ha tenido ninguna influencia en la vida sexual de los jóvenes y las costumbre de los jóvenes  de hoy son iguales a los de nuestra época, entonces para qué entonces tiene que haber educación sexual en las escuelas.

Pero el sistema del Papá Gobierno, sabelotodo y paternalista, no puede evitar meterse en todos los aspectos de nuestra vida, desde nuestra economía, hasta cómo nos comportamos con nuestros órganos genitales.

The Uncommon Thing Scott Walker Did After He Approached a Church Podium Sent Sales of This Christian Book ‘Skyrocketing’

Billy Hallowell

After Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a prospective 2016 presidential candidate, approached the podium at an Iowa church where the Faith & Freedom Coalition was recently held, he did something that’s uncommon among politicians; he read aloud from a Christian devotional.

Sharing excerpts from “Jesus Calling: Enjoying Peace in His Presence,” a bestselling book by missionary Sarah Young that was first published in 2004, Walker received both attention and praise from the 1,000-member audience of Christian conservatives at Point of Grace Church just outside Des Moines, Iowa.

But then something else happened.

The 11-year-old book, which is well-known in Christian circles and has sold millions of copies in recent years, “skyrocketed” and shot to the top of the charts on Amazon and Barnes & Noble, receiving a nice sales bump, Religion News Service reported.

A screen shot from the Barnes & Noble religion sales site shows that “Jesus Calling” is showing up among the bestsellers.

As he stood in front of the audience, Walker read an entry from the devotional — which was written in thefirst-person voice of Christ — from June 4, which was the day in 2012 that he won the recall election in Wisconsin, according to NewsMax.

Here’s the portion of the “Jesus Calling” text that he read just before telling the audience that the book taught him an important lesson about accepting God’s calling at the most unexpected of times:

“‘Welcome challenging times as an opportunity to trust me. You have me beside you and the spirit within you, so no set of circumstances is too difficult for you to handle.

When the path before you is dotted with difficulties, beware of measuring your strength against those challenges. Without me, you will not make it past the first hurdle.

The way to walk through demanding days is to grip my hand tightly and stay in close communication with me. Regardless of the day’s problems, I can keep you in perfect peace as you stay close to me.”

Walker’s decision to not only cite the book, but to devote in-depth attention to it during his speech might actually be a first among prospective presidential candidates.

A screen shot from Amazon.com shows that “Jesus Calling” is listed in second in the “Christian Books & Bibles” section.

“I mean, sure, candidates will cite books, but not like this,” Christian author Phyllis Tickle told Religion News Service.

But it wasn’t only Walker’s speech that drew attention to the book. Days before he spoke at the Faith & Freedom Coalition, he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he and his wife read “Jesus Calling” daily and that his family worships at an evangelical Christian church.

“Overall, my faith drives who I am and how I live,” he said. “My relationship with God drives every major decision in my life.”

Some experts have said that “Jesus Calling” has remained popular over the years and didn’t need Scott Walker’s endorsement to be a success, though his speech has elevated the book on sites like Amazon and Barnes & Noble, Religion News Service reported.

(H/T: Religion News Service)

AMENPER: Why Were Baltimore Police Ordered to Stand Down?

 by Bob Allen — 

The Baltimore police could have done more to stop the riots and protect the city. Why weren’t they allowed to do so?

Need a reminder of why you should be careful whom you elect to lead your city? Recent events in Baltimore should make you stand up and take notice.

Consider this CBS Baltimore headline: “Sheriff: ‘I Was Sick To My Stomach’ After Being Told To Stand Down.”

Michael Lewis is the Sheriff in Wicomico County, and was also a Sergeant with the Maryland State Police. He joined Ed Norris and Steve Davis on Thursday to talk about the alleged controversial orders the police were given during the riots.

Lewis said it wasn’t his intention to come to Baltimore, a drive of about two hours, but he felt it was his duty to help.

“I hadn’t planned to go to Baltimore at all. I watched the events unfold Saturday night like we all did, and was very concerned about what I saw, and the the lack of response Saturday night,” he said. “I immediately rallied up the troops. We made sure our MRAP was prepared and ready. … We were assigned to assigned to protect Baltimore City Police headquarters, all of E. Fayette Street up to City Hall, to include City Hall. There wasn’t a whole lot of activity taking place at all. We could smell that putrid smell of burning tires and a city on fire when as we came into the city. Had lots of concerns like everyone else. We maintained our post all night long until we were relieved.”

But what shocked him the most, he said, was when city police told him not to confront and accost the rioters.

“I was sick to my stomach like everybody else. … This was urban warfare, no question about it. They were coming in absolutely beaten down. The [city officers] got out of their vehicles, thanked us profusely for being there, apologized to us for having to be there. They said we could have handled this, we were very capable of handling this, but we were told to stand down, repeatedly told to stand down,” he said. “I had never heard that order come from anyone — we went right out to our posts as soon as we got there, so I never heard the mayor say that. But repeatedly these guys, and there were many high-ranking officials from the Baltimore City Police Department … and these guys told me they were essentially neutered from the start. They were spayed from the start. They were told to stand down, you will not take any action, let them destroy property. I couldn’t believe it, I’m a 31-year veteran of law enforcement. … I had never heard anything like this before in my life and these guys obviously aren’t gonna speak out and the more I thought about this, … I had to say a few things. I apologize if I’ve upset people, but I believe in saying it like it is.”

Why did the city burn so badly? Why were so many police vehicles abandoned in harm’s way? Why did some people call 9-1-1 for help—50 times or more—and get no response?

Because the mayor and city officials apparently decided there was a higher purpose in play, other than protecting innocent citizens and their property. Could Michael Snyder be right (“12 Unanswered Questions About The Baltimore Riots That They Don’t Want Us To Ask.”) that because Baltimore’s mayor has been one of the leading officials pushing for Federal involvement in local law enforcement—and receiving massive government bribes (grants) to do so, she let things spiral as part of not “letting a good crisis go to waste”?

[Mayor Stephanie] Rawlings-Blake was one of three mayors who provided broad input into President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, which advocates the federalization of police departments across the country by forcing them to adhere to stricter federal requirements when they receive funding.

“The federal government can be a strong partner in our efforts in build better relationships between the police and community,” she said in written testimony before the task force.

That would explain her inaction to stop the rioting when it began: by allowing it to spiral out of control, the mayor and her friends at the Justice Dept. could use the unrest to justify the expansion of federal power into local law enforcement, which would also allow her to receive more funding.”

Inquiring minds want to know.

Seems to me we all have some very pointed questions to ask candidates for local public office in the future. Is protecting local citizens ever subservient to other agendas? What is their view on Federalism, and the need for bottom-up power structures, rather than top-down from DC?

Baltimore’s mayor needs to be called before Congress, and grilled as to why she ordered her officers not to do their primary sworn duty. Her phone records should be pulled, to find out if she had any contact with Federal officials prior to her orders to “stand down.”

Liberty is on life-support.

PS: For those who say we don’t need firearms for self-defense, and should rely on calling 9-1-1… I rest my case. 50 calls. 50 cries for help. No answer. Sorry, I love my family more than that.
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/05/why-were-baltimore-police-ordered-to-stand-down/#uqoYA5Z2j4LVwecb.99

GOP Must Investigate Clinton Uranium Deal. By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

A week ago, The New York Times broke a front page, lead article story that detailed how Russia, led by Dictator Vladimir Putin, took over Uranium One, a major uranium mining concern. The article noted that as the transactions unfolded, “a flow of cash” totaling $2.35 million “made its way to the Clinton Foundation” from a foundation controlled by the Uranium One company CEO.

The paper also revealed that right after the Russians said they would buy a majority of Uranium One stock, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech “from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Finally, the newspaper pointed out that as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton — also the recipient of these funds deposited in the joint account she shares with her husband — approved Russia’s acquisition of Uranium One.

The NY Times noted that it did not know if “the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal.” But, it said, the episode underscores the “special ethical challenges” presented by the Clinton Foundation.

And that’s where the paper left it.

Tens of millions of Americans, reading the story, doubtless assumed that the Republican led Congress would get to the bottom of the affair and find out what role each of the Clintons played in the transaction. But since the story, there has been little or no action from Senator or House Republicans to investigate further.

Where is the GOP? Where is Congress?

The appropriate investigating committees of the House and Senate should convene a full investigation. They should subpoena the former president, Guistra, and the others involved in the transaction. They should ask national security experts to enlighten us about the risks of a large Russian presence in our domestic uranium market. We should hear from utility executives on how they would be impacted by Russian control of a fifth of our uranium.

Where are the defense hawks? McCain? Lindsay Graham? They should be out front denouncing Clinton’s actions and demanding a full explanation. The NY Times story raised key questions about conflicts of interest but also begs the question of whether or not a former president and his wife — a serving Secretary of State running for president — worked with Russians and Canadian mining interests to approve a deal that might prove injurious to the United States.

Bill Clinton did not disclose donations to his foundation from Uranium One — the go between in the deal. And, according to The New York Times, his aides “helped start a Canadian charity that effectively shielded the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million that went to his foundation.”

All this just adds fuel to the fire. In fact, the former president even lied to the media about meeting with Guistra in the first place. But where are the flames? Is the GOP asleep at the switch?

Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.

3044 S.W. 27 Ave

AMENPER: Exterminación de todos los Negros

AMENPER@aol.com

Abajo pueden encontrar un artículo larguísimo de un escrito de LeRoy Whitfield, que aunque no tiene la foto, pueden quizás saber cuál es su raza por su primer nombre.

Es escrito es contando como en 1998 se declaró el Sida como una epidemia en las comunidades afroamericanas.  El Reverendo Al Sharpton que desde entonces estaba dando guerra, y un grupo de “determinados” afroamericanos denunciaron que esta coincidencia se debía a un plan secreto de los supremacistas blancos que estaban contaminando a los negros de esta nación.  Tiene la historia de un tipo llamado Eoyd Ed Graves que dice que él había descubierto que era simplemente un genocidio que estaba ocurriendo por más de 10 años. Graves, que estaba contaminado dice que el sida es creado en laboratorios y usado como un arma biológica para matar negros, una limpieza étnica.  En el escrito también habla de otras pruebas de conspiraciones para matar a negros.

17 años más tarde, no hubo exterminación, al contrario tenemos un presidente negro y vemos muchos negros en las noticias de la nación.  Hoy las protestas del Rev. Sharpton son por otros motivos, cómo mañana serán por otros.  No importa que se haya probado que estaba en el Caso de la Universidad de Duke, más recientemente en la Fergurson, y antes con respecto a la conspiración del Sida.  Sharpton es un protestador profesional que no se amilana por tan poca cosa como que siempre está al lado irracional.  Pero no estamos acusando a Sharpton por ser negro.  Vemos los blancos como Al Gore que hace lo mismo con el calentamiento global, que se equivoca y después viene el cambio climático que se equivoca en las predicciones, pero igual que Sharpton eso no tiene importancia, el sigue con su cantaleta.

The Secret Plot to Destroy African Americans

by LeRoy Whitfield

From virus carrying mosquitoes to government biological warfare, the community is clamoring with theories about why blacks are hit harder by AIDS-and what to do about it.

On December 19, 1998, a month after President Clinton declared AIDS a crisis in black America -- a hard-won concession by the Congressional Black Caucus and a handful of determined African-American advocates -- Reverend Al Sharpton and a dirty dozen of community activists assembled for an AIDS assault of a different kind in Harlem.

They were responding to the same crazy reality: African Americans, who constitute only 13 percent of the U.S. population, then made up 32 percent of PWAs, a ratio that crept to 33 percent in 1999. But unlike Mario Cooper, whose Leading for Life campaign twisted the arms of African-American leaders to take on AIDS, or Maxine Waters, the empathetic Caucus chair who led the charge on Capitol Hill, Sharpton's six-hour-long meeting took aim at the reeling statistics with a whirlwind of theories. These theories, about why exactly AIDS shows such a strange affinity for blacks, have been blowing across America for more than 10 years now, stoking fires that no one's figured out how to put out.

One burning voice belongs to Boyd Ed Graves. Sitting at a well-polished dining room table at his home in Cleveland's black, solidly middle-class Mount Pleasant neighborhood, Graves offers an explanation for those numbers: genocide, plain and simple. In fact, he's suing the U.S. government for using tax dollars to secretly develop HIV in a lab and then deploy it as a biological weapon to kill blacks. It's ethnic cleansing, he says, and in the end not a single black soul will remain.

For the record, Graves, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1992 (and now has an undetectable viral load on HAART), concedes it's possible that he contracted the virus through unprotected sex. But more likely, he believes, he was the victim of a stealth dart gun, a "micro-bio- inoculator" that can tag unsuspecting victims from 100 feet away without so much as a prick, a product of the U.S. government's biological warfare program. Or, he imagines, he may have been one of thousands of unlucky African Americans infected through a bite by a virus-distributing mosquito bred by government contractors at an island facility off the shores of Manhattan. Or: "The HIV virus is the result of a century-long hunt for a contagious cancer that selectively kills." "If they didn't want me to discover the true origins of AIDS," Graves says, cutting a glare in my direction, "they shouldn't have given it to me."

Graves has an encyclopedic mind. He can pull numbers out of the air from reports he read 20 years ago. In 1976, he says, the U.S. Navy deemed him so competent that during his duty as a cryptography officer, he was one of only a few aboard the guided-missile destroyer on which he worked who were privy to nuclear launch codes. Later, Graves graduated from Ohio Northern University law school with honors.

His case against the government stemmed from a discrimination suit he filed against his first employer out of law school, a federally funded agency serving the disabled, which laid him off in 1995 shortly after he disclosed his HIV status. That suit was settled out of court for $48,000, he tells me, but in the process of building his extensive argument, Graves uncovered a document that would spark a lifelong obsession. It was the transcript of a 1970 Congressional hearing on defense appropriations during which a certain Dr. Donald MacArthur of the Pentagon mentioned a "biological agent...for which no natural immunity could be acquired...that could be developed within 5 to 10 years." That document was soon joined by hundreds of others to form the basis ofBoyd Graves vs. the President of the United States, which Graves filed in federal court last January.

He pulls out a copy of the MacArthur transcript for me and begins reading highlights, then stops himself midsentence and looks up. "Do you want to hear me read it in my Nixon voice?" he asks. Nixon, I'll soon discover, is just one of Graves' dozen impersonations. He also does the hostile AIDS outreach worker, the annoyed relative and the impatient bureaucrat, all of whom he's encountered on his hell-bent mission and whose voices repeat inside his head.

A district court, calling his name claims regarding the transmission of HIV "completely baseless and delusional," threw his case a month after after it was filed. But Graves continues to appeal, in March, a higher court granted a review.

Among Cleveland's AIDS leadership, Graves has earned a nickname: Crazy Eddie. He has spread his gospel to every AIDS agency in this Corn Belt town; he's caused such a stir that some compare his impact in the Midwest to that of ACT UP/San Francisco AIDS dissidents in the West. Jon Darr Bradshaw, executive director of the Xchange Point, a program that does street outreach in Cleveland's toughest neighborhoods, says that Graves' theories have created such doubt among his clients that some have begun refusing condoms and clean needles, suspicious that the supplies are tainted with HIV.Such incidents have only earned Graves more credibility in the eyes of some African Americans. Last March, he was named one of the 25 most influential people in Cleveland by Cleveland Life, Ohio's largest African-American newspaper. That followed a December 1999 editorial by the paper's then-news editor, Daniel Gray-Kontar, in which he wrote: "Is what Boyd Ed Graves saying accurate? I would respond with another question: If we would have been told about the experiments with blacks in Tuskegee with the syphilis virus, would we have believed the crier then?"

The long history of slavery and Jim Crow set the stage for African Americans to suspect an AIDS conspiracy, and, for many, evidence of other plots clinches the case. Two episodes famously surfaced in the 1970s: Tuskegee, where government researchers withheld syphilis meds from unsuspecting black southerners, and COINTELPRO, an FBI program that surveilled and harassed black radicals. Equally disturbing facts came out in an August 1996 piece, later partly retracted, which suggested a CIA role in allowing crack to be sold in LA's South Central to profit Nicaraguan contras. A June 1998 San Jose Mercury NewsLos Angeles Times article documented germ-warfare techniques planned against South African revolutionaries, including Nelson Mandela.

As one woman said at an LA town meeting convened by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) after the Mercury News piece ran, "Black men are in jail for selling drugs the CIA brought to our community the same way they brought the guns here for us to kill each other. If they don't get you that way, government doctors will stick you with AIDS. One way or another they'll destroy us."

The sister's not alone in her thinking. According to a 1999 study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one out of four African Americans surveyed said that they believed HIV was created by the U.S. government to eliminate blacks. That study echoed the findings of an earlier one by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which found that 54 percent of blacks surveyed viewed HIV testing as a ploy to infect them with the virus. Look at those numbers and the truth stares back: Belief in conspiracies is far from fringe.

Just stroll into an Afrocentric bookstore in any of America's urban centers and you'll find plenty of reading to reinforce even the slightest doubts about HIV, from white right-winger William Campbell Douglass' AIDS: The End of Civilization to black agitator Curtis Cost's Vaccines Are Dangerous: A Warning to the Black Community, which argues that HIV is a man-made biological weapon created to wipe out blacks. Cost's 1991 book is still a steady seller, recommended by the Universal Zulu Nation, a 12-city hip hop fraternity that discourages condom use and claims that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Recently, Cost did a complete 180 on HIV. As his latest, unpublished book will show, the Bronx resident tells me, "There's no such thing as AIDS," and we're all dupes of a misinformation campaign.

Cost, as a new AIDS dissident, was a key organizer of that well-attended December 1998 Harlem AIDS forum convened by Rev. Sharpton. There, Phillip Valentine, a self-described "natural healer," who believes blacks should abstain from all meds, even herbs, shared the podium with a dozen speakers, only one of whom thought HIV caused AIDS -- and that speaker argued that the virus had been intentionally transmitted to blacks through World Health Organization vaccine programs. Later, during an animated conversation, Valentine told me that it's the medicine, not the virus, that kills: "The only time you start getting sick is when you go to see a doctor." Valentine advises HIVers to stay away from meds under any circumstance. When a newly diagnosed friend of Valentine's called him in tears seeking advice, Valentine invited him over with his bag of prescriptions. "I asked 'What did they give you?' He named all the drugs. We prayed. After a brief ritual, I helped him pour them down the toilet."

While Graves, Valentine and Cost peddle their conspiracies on the ground, prominent African Americans have validated these ideas from the airwaves. Nation of Islam (NOI) head Louis Farrakhan has long maintained that AIDS was made in a government lab just outside Virginia, a message he spreads through his speeches and the NOI's organ, The Final Call. Several black entertainers have endorsed these views as well. In a 1990 appearance on The Arsenio Hall Show, rapper Kool Moe Dee stated that he thought AIDS was a part of a "clean up America campaign" intended to hit gays and minorities. Director Spike Lee seconded the notion in November 1991 in Rolling Stone, and in an October 1992 interview on CNN, media giant Bill Cosby said he thought AIDS was "man-made" and that "if it wasn't created to get rid of black folks, it sure likes us a lot." Though statements like these are less common of late, megastar Will Smith speculated in the July 1999 Vanity Fair that "possibly AIDS was created as a result of biological-warfare testing." These messages leave many African Americans caught in a life-or-death struggle between advice from their doctor and words from public figures they respect.

Forty miles northeast of Montgomery, Alabama, where Rosa Parks touched off the civil rights movement, lies a town whose very name has come to symbolize government malevolence: Tuskegee. I took a trip down to the scene of the crime last May, on the occasion of an AIDS training for black church leaders, to see with my own eyes the rooms where federal researchers watched, probed and tested 399 African American men as many slowly died, untreated and uninformed, from syphilis. The windows at the old John A. Andrew Hospital were broken and boarded. I came upon an open side entrance and, once inside, found retired medical equipment, a wall calendar that had collected dust since 1958 and, everywhere, the buzzing of hornets. Standing in a dim corridor, I tried to imagine 1932, back when the hospital was busy with black men waiting in chairs for treatment they never got. After 40 years, the study was finally halted and the hospital eventually closed, but somehow, standing in that place, the men's fears and misplaced hopes lingered.


A. Cornelius Baker, the African-American executive director of the Whitman-Walker Clinic in Washington, DC took the matter so seriously that he campaigned to make President Clinton apologize for Tuskegee, which he did in May 1997. "There was no way to have an honest discussion in the black community about HIV if that experiment was not addressed," Baker says. "But, at some point, the real issue isn't whether our government has acted in a way we don't like, but what do we do to fight against it."

One night during the training, I had dinner out on a patio with Karen Washington, an AIDS ministry lay leader at Friendship Baptist Church in Dallas. Washington, 37, tested positive at 23, but avoided taking HAART until three years ago because, she says, "I didn't want to be a guinea pig." She found out about her status while stationed on a U.S. Air Force base in London in 1987. "At the time I didn1t even know what the disease was," she says, though she noticed that other blacks -- but not whites -- on her base were experiencing the same thing. "People in the government are always working on things that we'll never know about. I thought that I might have gotten AIDS because something went wrong in the lab." Williams says her mistrust of the government only grew in the '90s after she heard reports of the mysterious symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome. She only went on HAART, years later, out of respect for her increasingly worried mother. For now, she's doing well: Her CD4s are just shy of 500, and her viral load is undetectable.

As Washington and other PWAs at Tuskegee opened up to me about their postdiagnosis searchings, I found myself identifying with their fears, and with their basic suspicion about the disease and the drugs. As an African-American AIDS journalist, I have access to cutting-edge treatment information, and yet I haven't been to a doctor in a year and a half. Maybe the truth is I've examined every crackpot theory from Tuskegee to Cleveland with an open mind because, quietly, I hope I can believe one of them. When you're asymptomatic like I am, you really want to believe that AIDS can't happen; if Valentine and Cost are right, and AIDS isn't real, then I could distance myself from the virus in my blood.

Three months after the conference, I trek up to Columbia University at the edge of Harlem, to sit down with African-American scholars Mindy Fullilove, MD, a psychiatrist, and Robert Fullilove, EdD, a statistician and theologian, whom I met in Tuskegee. After 17 years of marriage and 14 years of partnered community research, the Fulliloves have their routine down pat. Today, she fields calls while he answers my questions. "As we've talked to people who are HIV infected, but are not interested in getting treatment, who have a completely different worldview about their illness and what they ought to do about it, it becomes very clear that saying 'Trust your doctor' is not enough to make them accept advice," Fullilove says. "They simply don't accept science as the final word on anything to do with AIDS, and certainly not as the final word on what they should do about their health."

In published essays and in many of the the 70 studies they've co-authored, the Fulliloves have examined myths about the origins of HIV, government intent with regard to AIDS, why African Americans are at greater risk, and why they avoid mainstream treatment. "Time isn't enough to heal every wound," he says, "or to resolve a worldview that made slavery possible. So there's a tendency on the part of African Americans, founded in their experience, to view everything done by whites with suspicion and mistrust." And to give the benefit of the doubt to solutions that come from within the black community.

Take Bronx resident Andre Cromer, 34. "All the stories I was hearing," he says, his solid gold medallion swaying with every gesture, "was that the medicine kills you, not the disease, and that AZT is poison. I was looking for an alternative." In 1992, six years before he was diagnosed with HIV, he found one. He was sitting in a large crowd at Louis Farrakhan's majestic Mosque Maryam in Chicago when the NOI's health minister, Abdul Alim Muhammad, took the stage. Cromer listened spellbound as Muhammad infused the audience with hope and racial pride, announcing that an AIDS cure, Kemron (a low-dose, oral preparation of alpha interferon), had been discovered in Africa. The miraculous news had been slow to spread, Muhammad said, because the discoverer, a Kenyan, couldn't get black ink in the white press. At the Million Man March in 1995, Farrakhan shared his limelight with Muhammad to bring the same message to the masses; bow-tied Final Call salesmen were pushing the word about Kemron, too, penetrating black communities from Bed-Stuy to Compton.

Muhammad's speech was all that Cromer needed to hear. "After that, I didn't really worry about getting the disease, because I always felt that I knew where the cure was," he says After Cromer ditched condoms and hard-to-keep rules about safer sex, it wasn't much of a surprise in 1988 when, after 10 days in Harlem's North General Hospital with pneumonia, his HIV test was positive. Cromer already knew what to do: He logged on to the website of NOI's Abundant Life Clinic, looking to buy some Kemron.

He found Barbara Justice, MD, who sold him Kemron out of her office in Harlem, not too far from North General, where he had tested positive and was offered his first round of combo therapy. Not too far, either, from the trash receptacle where he dumped the meds he'd been prescribed. Before, in 1992, at the height of Kemron's success, Justice was one of 70 NOI-affiliated doctors nationwide selling the drug, for $1,500 for a six-month supply. Kemron was then so wildly popular that it was even peddled on 125th Street, Harlem's main artery, on the same strip where you could cop a rock or a nickel bag.

Throughout the '90s, the drug was beset by troubles: A buyers' club offered low-dose alpha interferon to PWAs for only $50, a tiny fraction of the NOI price; anecdotal reports of the drug's ineffectiveness accumulated; when, after NOI pressure, the NIH finally agreed to begin clinical trials of Kemron, the agency halted them due to lack of enrollment. While New York City HIV doc Joseph Sonnabend, MD, says the diluted alpha interferon "doesn't hurt anyone," he also says it doesn't help. Some of his patients in the pre-protease era went to Kenya for Kemron, he recalls: "It cost them quite a bit to go there, and they came back and died anyway."

But none of that matters to Cromer, who's only on insurance-reimbursed antiretrovirals now because he's short on cash for Kemron. (On Kemron, he says, his CD4s spiked from 28 to 128, and his viral load dived from 750,000 to undetectable -- a result he's maintained on HAART.) Or at least it wasn't enough to challenge his racial solidarity.

While Cromer's sticking with Kemron, 9-year-old Precious Thomas, of Suitland, Maryland says she's on to the next new thing: goat therapy. Precious had tried Kemron, too, but quit the drug because, her mom Rocky says, it made her feel "listless." Perhaps a testament to the Thomases' continuing faith in black cures, the sixth-grader has since become the poster child for what Tulsa native Gary Davis, MD, aka "the goat doctor," calls "goat anti-human immune globulin." "You see, ladies and gentlemen," the confident child told an audience of 1,500 at 1998's Congressional Black Caucus town meeting on AIDS, "God, Dr. Muhammad and Dr. Davis, my heroes, took my viral load from 180,000 to zero, because of a special medicine called an antibody. Who would have thought something this special could be found in a goat?"

The idea for the serum came to Davis in a dream, and he quickly got to work isolating a goat's antibodies. By his account, he was able to use the substance to stop HIV from infecting CD4 cells in the lab. He put in a new drug application to the FDA in 1996, and when the agency turned him down, Davis cried foul. "I'm a black physician in the heart of the Tulsa ghetto," he told The Washington Post. "I'm not Pfizer. I'm not Merck. Get real. It's hard for you to be accepted within the ruling clique. What you say has to be proven above and beyond the normal expectations." NIH head Anthony Fauci told Fox News in 1998, "Not only is there not any basis for it to work, but there is evidence that it won't work."

Even without human or animal testing, media exposure has made Davis' remedy urban legend. Unlike Kemron distributors, who make a healthy profit, Davis gives his drug away for free, which adds to his appeal. Rocky Thomas was sold; she crossed the country to grab a bottle from his lab for her daughter, who's now been on the therapy for two years. "When she started taking [HAART], she stayed sick," says Rocky. "I asked myself, 'Why am I constantly giving this child stuff that's making her sick?' But her numbers are better now [on the goat serum]. It's the only thing that's truly given me hope."

I asked Robert Fullilove what he thought of these miracle meds, Kemron and goat serum. "We create goat doctors ourselves," he says, "because they fill the vacuum of what is perceived to be a complete disinterest in doing what is necessary to combat this epidemic among blacks. Our failure to be proactive makes people think that they need to find someone else who is."

There's a bit of disagreement among the conspiracy theorists: Graves and Farrakhan say that HIV is a biological weapon, while Valentine, Cost and Davis preach that blacks need to avoid toxic HIV drugs and seek out alternatives. But what binds these black men together is that each has made a successful grassroots push to get his message out into the streets of black communities across the country -- where many better-funded AIDS outreach workers fear to tread. The conspiracists have one up on mainstream African American AIDS advocates, who are often perceived to be pushing the same old message -- wear condoms, get tested, get treated with pharmaceutical meds -- dressed up in "culturally appropriate" garb, a kind of AIDS in blackface. Instead of trying to allay black fears, Graves and company speak directly to them. And they share an electrifying contention that their ideas have been shut out by white America.

At this point, Graves has been shut out for so long that he's almost shrunk into the self-loathing "nigger faggot with AIDS" that he often calls himself. He's earned the cynicism: He lost a job for being positive, got kicked out of the military for being gay and experiences racism every day as he tries to spread the word about his obsession, the government's secret virus program. In the face of all of this rejection, it's probably easier for him to think his life will come to a fiery apocalyptic end, a target of an international plot, than to face his illness day by day, holed up in his teenage nephew's room. Just before I leave him, all his voices are quiet. It's just me and Graves. "There's no hope, my friend," he says, eyes cast to the floor. "The elimination of the black population is well underway. They've got their crosshairs aimed at Africans and people of African decent."

Here are some more numbers for you. According to two 1999 Kaiser Family Foundation reports, African Americans are more than twice as likely as whites to not be taking combination therapy. We're one and a half times more likely to not get preventative treatment for pneumonia. Once in care, 64 percent of us believe that we'll receive worse treatment than whites do. And there are more to these numbers than the entrenched racism of a health care system in which African Americans are less often insured and have less access to health care than most.

As long as black AIDS deaths continue to rise, Crazy Eddie's crew will keep home-court advantage in the black community. "In addition to the threat of the virus itself, many black people think that there are larger questions about which they have very serious doubts," says Robert Fullilove. "These doubts aren't going to be calmed by showering folks with facts and figures or the preaching of noted scientists. If we don't face the fact that this is part of the HIV/AIDS dialogue, our failure to take it into account is going to cost us. The us I'm referring to is not just African Americans, but anyone who's interested in waging an effective battle against the epidemic."



THE 4-H CLUB

Partners in paranoia
African Americans aren't the only AIDS-traumatized U.S. group to harbor suspicions that the disease was no accident. Many gay men, Haitian Americans, drug users and people with hemophilia have also raised eyebrows about HIV's strange affinity for them, saying that their long history of abuse offers good reason to believe that the powers-that-be are hostile to their survival. These suspicions were fueled by the timing of AIDS, which appeared just after Ronald Reagan won the presidency, his way paved by a hate-mongering Christian Right. A parade of conspiracy theories was the result:

Homosexuals. Coming so soon after a spate of local anti-gay ballot initiatives, the epidemic's onset was seen by many gays as a plot. Reflecting his constituents' views, in 1983, Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY) told a Greenwich Village AIDS forum that, "given the attitudes towards homosexuals by some segments of society, the possible utilization of biological weapons must be seriously explored." By 1985, the Native, a New York City gay paper,reported that 37 percent of gay men polled believed that AIDS was "created by the federal government for political reasons." That year, Larry Kramer's hit play The Normal Heart included a scene about an anti-gay biowarfare plot. In recent years, with better treatments and some victories for queer acceptance, these suspicions have largely dissipated. In some quarters, they've been superceded by the "dissident" view that AIDS is nonexistent, invented by a greedy medical establishment.

Haitian Americans. In the early '80s, Reagan greeted thousands of Haitian refugees fleeing a brutal U.S.-backed dictatorship with either forcible return or jail. As some detainees contracted either AIDS or gynecomastia (the development in men of female breasts), fears caught fire that U.S. authorities had injected the detainees with agents causing both illnesses. After years of litigation, the gynecomastia was linked to improper use of a toxic anti-lice spray. But the continued stigmatization of Haitians as "AIDS carriers" -- aided by a CDC label of "risk group" (a decision revoked after massive protests) -- simply stoked fears that a U.S. biowarfare campaign brought the disease to their community. In 1992-93, when Presidents Bush and Clinton held HIV positive Haitian refugees in filthy barbed-wire camps at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Haitian American fears were reinforced, and their suspicions persist today.

Heroin Users. Long considered by diverse sectors of society as beneath contempt, many IDUs -- particularly people of color -- have seen AIDS as the final effort to wipe them out. Once needle exchange was shown to be effective at stemming HIV transmission, the intense political opposition to its funding -- continuing through three presidencies -- confirmed users' fears. This remains perhaps the only U.S. population about which public figures can get away with saying, "Let 'em die," as Judge Judy did this year.

Hemophiliacs. In 1996, Corey Dubin, president of the Committee of Ten Thousand, spoke for many hemophiliacs when he likened their situation to that of the African-American men of the Tuskegee syphilis study, writing in POZ, "We were considered expendable in the name of both profit and so-called medical progress." He was referring to the negligence of drug companies that until 1985 refused to screen and heat-treat the blood products necessary for hemophiliacs' survival. Congress finally acknowledged responsibility when it passed the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act to compensate those infected due to government and corporate negligence. Ironically, the AIDS-plot writers most quoted by African-American, gay and other conspiracy advocates are part of the same ultra-right groups that have demonized these communities for years. In the neo-fascists' telling, AIDS biowarfare programs were hatched by a Soviet-controlled UN hell-bent on global domination. And their solutions to this "man-made disease" are a malignant mix of mandatory HIV testing, forced partner notification, and quarantine of HIVers

AMENPER: Significado histórico del nacimiento del nuevo heredero de Kate y William

Cuando la Duquesa de Cambridge estaba embarazada con Prince George sus amigos y familiares le enviaron una diversidad  de posibles nombres. Esta vez el nombre de juego de adivinanzas se ha convertido en una sorpresa nacional. 

George era el nombre del padre amado de la reina. Así que la pregunta era ¿a quien le van a rendir homenaje con el nombre del nuevo bebé ahora?

Pero ahora se ha filtrado una noticia sensacional, Kate ya dio a luz y por razones del trono y ciertos rumores sobre inquietudes de la reina Isabel, la corte ha querido mantener el nacimiento en secreto al pueblo inglés y al mundo por el momento, hasta que se encuentre explicación a ciertas características físicas del nuevo heredero real.

La noticia que se ha filtrado también dice que el nombre escogido para el nuevo heredero es” Le Roy”, que sería un nuevo nombre en la sucesión real.

Aunque el nombre de origen tiene connotaciones de nobleza, porque quiere decir “El Rey” también es un nombre muy usado en la comunidad afroamericana, lo cual conjuntamente con ciertas facciones y color del nuevo heredero,  ha levantado ciertos rumores en la corte.

Jorge A Villalon: Dear Justice Alito: Here is What Homosexuality Was Really Like In Ancient Greece

The Huffington Post  |  By Kira Brekke

In Tuesday's Supreme Court hearings, which will determine whether the Constitution protects same-sex marriage and if states must recognize marriages from other states, notoriously conservative Justice Samuel Alito argued that it's possible to approve of gay relationships but not same-sex marriage, using Ancient Greece as an example in which homosexual relationships were "well accepted within certain bounds."

So we at HuffPost Live wanted to dig a little deeper to see if, in fact, Justice Alito had a point. Turns out, it's a little more complicated than that. In the video above, Thomas Hubbard, a professor of Greek and Roman literature at the University of Texas and editor of Homosexuality in Greece and Rome, discusses same-sex relationships in Ancient Greece and what our gay brothers and sisters from way back when may have thought about same-sex marriage.

Sign up here for Live Today, Huff Post Live's new morning email that will let you know the newsmakers, celebrities and politicians joining us that day and give you the best clips from the day before!

Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.

AMENPER: ¡Lange lebe der tag der Arbeit!

¡Viva el Primero de Mayo!

Hoy es el Primero de Mayo. ¡Que viva el Primero de Mayo!.

Desde muy pequeño escuchaba impresionado ese grito de guerra.  Al  principio como un agradable día de fiesta, porque no teníamos clase, después porque me causó una  sorpresa emocional cuando una persona  "bondadosamente" me instruyó que ese no era un día de fiesta para mi, que era  para los trabajadores y mi padre era de la patronal explotadora. 

Hasta entonces siempre había pensado que mi padre era un hombre muy trabajador, porque trabajaba largas horas después que cerraba la farmacia, colocando la mercancía recibida y haciendo los pedidos para el nuevo día. 

Pero me explicaron que como tenía tres empleados era un explotador.  Esto me intrigó y empecé a instruirme realmente sobre esta situación, llegando a la educada conclusión de que hay muchos tipos de trabajadores y muchas clases de patrones, y que la idiótica lucha de clases no era más que una idea política.

En mi búsqueda de la verdad, una de las más elusivas fue el primero de Mayo. 

En la Cuba de mi tiempo el socialismo prevalecía como una buena doctrina, por eso el partido comunista cambió su nombre al Partido Socialista Popular, habían  Socialistas Cristianos y otras gamas de socialistas, lo que fue desapareciendo fue la idea conservadora. 

En ese ambiente, cada día el primero de Mayo, salían escritos sobre la "masacre de los Trabajadores de Chicago" por el "imperialismo Yanqui".

Como no habían escritos conservadores, tuve que ir a la historia, a las diferentes versiones no políticas.

Basado en las noticias de los periódicos de la época, pude ver las dos caras de la moneda y llegar a un consensus, el cual les voy a contar más en detalle abajo.

Pero básicamente la realidad de lo que encontré  es que el movimiento del 1ro de Mayo de 1886  que creó las manifestaciones era un movimiento sindicalista socialista extranjero (no americano) de la internacional comunista que estaba cobrando vigencia  en Europa, y que los trabajadores y sindicatos envueltos en las manifestaciones y sus líderes  no eran americanos pero europeos.

Esto se revela progresivamente como les voy a contar.- 

Pero a vuelo de pájaro, con respecto al hecho  del juicio a los 8 "martires", juzgados bajos leyes Norteamérica por conspiración criminal y sedición, con el resultado de que cinco fueron encontrados culpables y condenados a muerte, hay detalles significativos.

Los "trabajadores americanos mártires del 1ro de Mayo"  condenados en el juicio, no eran trabajadores de la industria pesada ni eran en su mayoría americanos. 

Spies, el líder principal y dueño de un periódico, no era proletario, y así como  Fischer,  Engel, Lingg y Schwab eran alemanes de nacimiento.

 Neebe era nacido en Estados Unidos de padres alemanes, sólo Parsons y Fielden eran angloparlantes nativos, nacidos en Estados Unidos de padres británicos. Todos eran anarquistas-socialistas.

El hecho de que el periódico de Spies, que era en Alemán era publicado en alemán y era el vehículo para la información de los manifestantes, la mayoría de los cuales no hablaban inglés, hace comprender el hecho tan importante de la desinformación que los llevó a manifestaciones pidiendo violentamente una ley de las 8 horas de trabajo, que ya había sido aprobada primero por la legislatura de Illinois en 1867 y en Mayo de 1869 cuando el Presidente Grant  firmó la "Proclamación Nacional de las ocho horas de Trabajo" .

 Si algunos de los industriales evadían la ley es el deber y el derecho de los sindicatos de protestar y remediar la injusticia haciendo protestas y huelgas localmente en cada centro de trabajo y eso lo hacían los otros sindicatos..  Pero las manifestaciones de los sindicatos socialistas tenían la motivación de tratar de implementar el comunismo, como ya habían tratado de hacerlos en Francia, Inglaterra Alemania y Rusia (donde por fin lo consiguieron en Octubre de 1917).  

El objetivo no era realmente tratar de corregir una injusticia  era una manifestación para derrocar el gobierno para cambiar el sistema, esto es sedición y tiene el castigo de la pena de muerte ante la ley.

Los sindicatos no extranjeros estaban en desacuerdo con la huelga, así que aunque nos digan que era general, era muy particular de los anarquistas-comunistas y limitada a las ciudades de industria pesada donde su sindicato era fuerte.  Los sindicatos no comunistas, que eran la mayoría de los trabajadores, se oponían a la huelga.

Les cito una nota del mayor sindicato de la época:

"Ninguna asamblea de los Caballeros del Trabajo debe hacer huelga por el sistema de ocho horas el l° de mayo con la impresión de que están obedeciendo órdenes del liderato, porque tal orden no se dio y no se dará. Si una rama de trabajo o una asamblea está en tal condición, recordemos que hay muchos completamente ignorantes del movimiento. De los sesenta millones habitantes de Estados Unidos y Canadá, nuestra orden posiblemente cuenta con trescientos mil. ¿Podemos moldear el sentimiento de millones a favor del plan de menos horas antes del l° de mayo? No tiene sentido pensarlo. Aprendamos por qué nuestras horas de trabajo deben reducirse y luego enseñémoslo a otros".

Ahora les cito el llamamiento a la huelga del periódico de Spies, el dueño alemán de un periódico en alemán, y uno de los"mártires" americanos del 1ro. de Mayo:

Un día de rebelión, no de descanso! Un día no ordenado por los voceros jactanciosos de las instituciones que tienen encadenado al mundo del trabajador. Un día en que el trabajador hace sus propias leyes y tiene el poder de ejecutarlas! Todo sin el consentimiento ni aprobación de los que oprimen y gobiernan. Un día en que con tremenda fuerza la unidad del ejército de los trabajadores se moviliza contra los que hoy dominan el destino de los pueblos de toda nación. Un día de protesta contra la opresión y la tiranía, contra la ignorancia y la guerra de todo tipo. Un día en que comenzar a disfrutar `ocho horas de trabajo, ocho horas de descanso, ocho horas para lo que nos dé la gana'".

Engels escribe, en ese entonces,...[ sobre la posición "excepcional" y "aristocrática" de los trabajadores Americanos nacidos en el país. Diciendo que sin embargo, la gran mayoría de los proletarios, especialmente en ciudades como Chicago, eran de Alemania, Irlanda, Bohemia, Francia, Polonia, Rusia. Olas de inmigrantes arrojadas la una contra la otra... comprimidas en tugurios, azuzados en guerras étnicas, usadas las unas contra las otras ]. O sea que las manifestaciones eran contra los trabajadores americanos, no por los trabajadores americanos.

Un proletario americano describió a los trabajadores extranjeros en un periódico de la época:

"`Bárbaros, salvajes, anarquistas ignorantes analfabetos de Europa Central, hombres que no pueden comprender el espíritu de nuestras instituciones americanas libres'

Las manifestaciones del 1ro. de Mayo de 1886,  que ahora nos describen como "un río de sangre de los trabajadores por las calles de Chicago", según las crónicas de la época dejaron 4 muertos y 80 heridos y detenidos por los anarquistas y 7 oficiales muertos  y 60 heridos der la policía.  La mayor parte de los muertos y heridos de la policía fueron por una bomba que lanzaron contra ellos, que en los escritos comunista dicen que fue una "autoagresión" pero que en el juicio Lois Lingg, uno de los "mártires", condenado confesó haberla construido pero dijo que no la había lanzado personalmente.

Si tomamos como comparación , algo de que no se celebra mundialmente que son las rebeliones contra la ocupación soviéticas de Polonia y Checoslovaquia, con sus miles de muertos, se puede considerar que en Chicago la sangre no llegó al río.

¿Algunos de ustedes de acuerdan de la fecha de esas rebeliones?, creo que no, pero estoy seguro que si se acuerdan el 1ro de mayo que pasó hace más de cien años. Por eso ellos nos ganan siempre en la batalla de la propaganda.  Posiblemente los sucesos que están sucediendo hoy en día se re-escriban de manera parecida en el futuro.

Los Estados Unidos del 1886, era un país en formación, la guerra civil había terminado en 1862, y la guerra con los indios todavía existía en el oeste, mientras el sur estaba en un estado de reconstrucción. 

En este estado durante los años 1860, en los Estados Unidos y el mundo entero, se estaba implementando la Revolución Industrial, con sus beneficios y sus desgracias, como toda revolución de cualquier tipo. 

El país, diezmada su población por la guerra, llamó a todos los desamparados de las tierras Europeas y los acogió en su seno, necesitaban trabajadores.

La vida en Estados Unidos, incluso para los inmigrantes pobres, era mejor que en los países que habían abandonado. El desempleo era poco y los sueldos eran relativamente altos. Además, ese recurso especial de Estados Unidos tierra gratis en las zonas a desarrollar, le dio a sectores de la clase trabajadora por lo menos la esperanza de obtener propiedad. La esperanza de encontrar una oportunidad.

Pero con el tiempo surgen las diferencias, mientras algunos se aprovechan de la oportunidad de la nueva vida en el nuevo mundo, otros se sienten atraídos por los cantos de sirenas de los compatriotas socialistas que se montaron en el barco para tatar de cambiar el sistema democrático.

(¿Por qué será que esto me suena familiar?)

Son bonitos los cantos de las sirenas, por eso todavía se oyen, y por eso todavía en este país si hacemos un google en la internet sobre el 1ro. de Mayo, no encontrarán ningunos de estos hechos históricos se relatan como realmente sucedieron.

Y como van las cosas quizás veremos manifestaciones del 1ro. de Mayo para honrar a los "mártires de Chicago" y a los "heroes prisioneros de la Red Avispa" o a Michael Brown asesinado por la policía de Fergurson.

AMENPER: ¿Es el paternalismo de Estado Malo?

AMENPER@aol.com

Analizando el Paternalismo de Estado

Paternalismo de Estado,  según la definición en Wikipedia es: "una relación entre el gobierno y los gobernados que implican atención y control sugestivo de aquellos seguidos por un padre."

Algunas preguntas son tan simples preguntar o como difícil es contestar la pregunta, "¿por qué es algo malo?"

que trae a colación en este caso la siguiente pregunta ¿Por qué es el Paternalismo de Estado malo? No es fácil de contestar.

Los códigos morales  de la historia han estado en acuerdo sustancial en cuanto a lo que es ordenado y lo prohibido. Sin mucha explicación de por qué un acto es incorrecto, estos códigos han sido simplemente aceptados: "No matarás", "no robarás," y así sucesivamente. Mientras creemos en la infalibilidad de la fuente o el autor del código, hubo poca ocasión de impugnarla.

Si tomamos los decretos en su valor nominal, nunca tuvimos a la razón por qué lo hicimos. Entonces. ¿Por qué es difícil encontrar respuestas en el ámbito de la ética? Tal vez sea debido a una falta general de búsqueda realmente reflexión y pensamiento en esta área

 Por ejemplo "no robarás”. Esto  presupone la institución de la propiedad privada. No habría ningún concepto de robo a menos que hubiera, en primer lugar, ideas acerca de lo que es mío y lo que es tuyo. Robar es la toma de la propiedad de otra persona sin su consentimiento.

Esta universalmente aceptado que el robo es malo, pero el robo se está volviendo universal. No-de-persona-a persona — este es sólo menor — pero políticamente organizado a robos a gran escala,. por la doctrina del socialismo. Esto se basa en la toma de la propiedad de algunos sin su consentimiento para el presunto beneficio de otros, y los americanos ahora lo están justificando cada vez más o incluso apoyando el socialismo en una o más de sus numerosas formas. La toma de propiedad sin consentimiento se está legalizando, pero legalidad no es igual a la moralidad. Legalización del robo simplemente anula las sanciones contra el robo legalizado.

Esta afición popular para tomar propiedad sin consentimiento es razón suficiente para preguntar, "¿por qué es malo robar?" Ahora nuestros funcionarios elegidos están exigiendo que los frutos de la labor de algunos puedan tomarse por la fuerza en beneficio de otros en nombre de la igualdad.

Desde impuestos crecientes a los ingresos de lo creadores de la riqueza de la nación, hasta la permisividad del saqueo de amotinados por razones que no debieran tener relación con el robo a la propiedad de otros que no están relacionados a la causa o excusa del motín..

Cuándo el hombre interfiere con la propiedad de otro entonces, ¿no debe de ser esto interpretados como malo? ¿ No son estas intervenciones en la propiedad del individuo, ya sea por medio de impuestos o por robo directo,unas interferencias u ofuscaciones o disuasivos que limitan la libertad de un individuo para realizar, como quiera y como lo permitan sus capacidades, sus propias potencialidades creativas y disfrutar de sus frutos?; Las acciones que eluden la armonización de este principio rompe el circuito natural de la vida y de la propiedad adquirida. Cualquier acto escriturado o pensamiento que lesiona o deteriora o se oscurece o se rompe este circuito sagrado es, por estas definiciones, malas o malo!

Nos dicen y todos están de acuerdo de que una persona que toma la vida de otro es cortar el circuito sagrado de la vida. Por lo tanto, el asesinato debe de ser considerado malo.

¿Pero qué me dices del Robo? ¿No estel código también correcto y relacionado con el que decreta "no robarás?" Porque ganarse la vida no es sino la extensión de la vida. Sin el anterior el último es imposible. La toma de medios de subsistencia en la ausencia de consentimiento invade su vida de un hombre; y privación completa lleva su vida.

Por legalizar el acto no altera su una ápice inmoralidad, igual  que la legalización del asesinato no sería moral!

Ahora, ¿por qué ocurre el paternalismo? Paternalismo, por definición, presupone a una transferencia de la responsabilidad. En vez de cada individuo de ser responsable por sí mismo, plantea la propuesta que el gobierno es responsable de él responsable de su salario, sus horas o mano de obra, la cantidad de su producción, los precios pueden recibir, qué y con quien puede intercambiar, su salud, su edad avanzada y; responsable, en breve, para su seguridad, bienestar y prosperidad.  

Aquí no estoy hablando de la viabilidad o la utilidad del paternalismo. Los economistas y los países socialistas mejor que yo  han demostrado que no funciona. No hay ningún aspecto del paternalismo que no ha sido demolido intelectualmente y en la práctica. No, no estoy preocupado con la pregunta, "¿el paternalismo funciona?" el hecho de que no funciona es evidente.  Estoy buscando sólo una respuesta a la pregunta, "¿es bueno o es malo?"

En primer lugar, el paternalismo es una tergiversación de hecho. Según como están las cosas en la naturaleza humana, la responsabilidad de uno mismo es tan intransferible como es respirar, creer, intuyendo o realizando actos corporales como orinar o defecar.  Nadie puede hacer esto como no sea usted mismo. Nadie nadie puede hacer esta responsabilidad física por usted, ya sea un gobierno, una Unión o una agencia de bienestar privado, puede asumir la responsabilidad de una persona.

 No importa lo que haya sucedido con el fracaso del comunismo en el mundo, siempre sucede que hay personas que pueden convencer a otra persona que el paternalismo es bueno y se hace demasiado a menudo. Esto es, a una persona, si es ingenuo, se le puede vender la idea de que alguna persona o colectivo o gobierno puede aceptar y cumplir las responsabilidades que son exclusivamente suyas propias.

Actuando en esta falsa premisa, el individuo mueve su propio interruptor en "off"; él, en su ignorancia, rompe el circuito de su vida desatendido su destino y decide comprometerse sin mayor objetivo y propósito a la mera existencia de un animal domesticado que depende de la comida que le sirve su amo. Recordando nuestro objeto de vida es como la armonización de la conciencia individual con la conciencia infinita,  el paternalismo, como concepto, puede llegar a ser tan destructivo del propósito de la vida como asesinato. El Paternalismo se debe, por tanto, calificarse como malo!

. La vida de una persona no puede ser dada a otro para su administración, desarrollo o crecimiento. Cada hombre es individualmente responsable de su vida de sus facultades para la realización de sus potencialidades. En la naturaleza del caso, ningún otro ser humano puede hacer esto para él.

Hay pruebas abundantes que esfuerzo consciente y constante ejercicio de estas facultades se traducirá en su crecimiento y ese desuso traerá consigo una disminución o atrofia. Para un individuo de aceptar la falsa noción de paternalismo es para que él aceptar el fatalismo — Sí, fatal: error de tiempo de inactividad. "Lo que no se usa se atrofia," es una ley básica de la vida. Si abrazamos conciencia infinita como nuestro objeto principal o premisa, no podemos menos que concluir que el paternalismo rompe el circuito de la vida.

El mal del paternalismo es bilateral. Por un lado la pasión para jugar a ser el papá de las personas, esto tiene motivaciones que van desde la imposición de la falsa compasión para el del bien de los demás, que los hace esclavos del estado,  a una afán de aparecer caritativo, para la obtención de prestigio y poder, como suele ser el caso de los políticos paternalistas.

El dicho de que no es darle el pescado a una persona lo que resuelve su problema de subsistencia, pero el enseñarlo a pescar, es una exposición popular y clara del mal de paternalismo.  Es enseñar y crear el incentivo para que el individuo trabaje, no convertirlo en un ser inútil a la sociedad dependiendo de los demás.

En definitiva: el patrón paternalista se distingue fácilmente por esto tres arquetipos, siendo su composición entera:

1. Que extrae coercitivamente sustento de los crean las riquezas. Tomar propiedad sin consentimiento es un robo. Las víctimas son víctimas de un mal.

2. Con respecto a los que se da el fruto del trabajo de los demás. Frutas mal habidas no benefician a nadie. Además, dar para dependencia el que realmente no lo necesita, es destructivo del propósito de la vida y está mal. Un aparato político es incapaz de hacer caridad, porque un colectivo no tiene medios de sintonización de un orden práctico.

3. los autoritarios son los que hacen la toma y la entrega. Jugando a ser Dios que es el pecado favorito de los hombres..

El paternalismo es no sólo inviable en un sentido estrictamente utilitario, como cualquier otro economista experto puede probar fácilmente, sino que está mal en un sentido moral y espiritual.

¿Por qué, entonces, cualquier persona racional tuviera algo que ver con el estado de bienestar como se está implementando en esta administración?

Iran Moves Warships Into Key Strategic Position

Wilmot Proviso 

In another ominous sign of deteriorating conditions in the Middle East, Iran moved two of its warships into Bab-el-Mandeb, a narrow strait that is a strategic position between Yemen and Djibouti.

The Bab-el-Mandeb is the point of entry to the Red Sea from the south. Roughly four million barrels of oil pass through the strait on a daily basis, heading either to or from the Suez Canal to the north, according to Yahoo News.

RELATED STORIES

·         Hillary Clinton’s Dirty Closet Emptied In Seconds While You Watch

·         Radio Host Mark Levin Slams Jeb Bush’s Immigration Ideas

·         Watch: MLK Takes On Baltimore Rioters And Roasts Them With His Own Words

The movement of warships into the strait comes after a tumultuous month in the region. Just last week, U.S. warships left the waters off of Yemen after several Iranian ships suspected of carrying weapons to the Shiite rebels in Yemen turned back as well.

On Tuesday, the Iranian navy also seized a U.S. container ship, although the Iranian government said it was over debts.

“The information that the Iranian ships received warnings and left the area (off Yemen) is not correct,” said Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari, the head of the Iranian navy.

TRENDING STORIES

·         Watch: The Best 30-Second Speech On The Riots Just Came From This Black Baltimore Man

·         MLK’s Niece Pens Devastating Open Letter To Baltimore Mayor

·         Watch: Baltimore Rioters Destroyed His Home. Now He Wants You To Know One Thing…

He also denied that the ships were delivering weapons to the Huthi rebels in Yemen, saying Iran had no intention of entering “the territorial waters of other countries.”

Sayari said the two Iranian destroyers stationed in the Bab-el-Mandeb, the Alborz, and Bushehr would be there until late June.

“We are present in the Gulf of Aden in accordance with international regulations to ensure the safety of commercial ships of our country against the threat of pirates,” Sayari said.

However, many observers believe the move was likely related to tensions between Iran, which backs the Shiite Huthi rebels in Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, which backs the Sunni-led establishment.

In addition to the deployment of the destroyers in the Bab-el-Mandeb, the Saudi chargé d’affaires was summoned to Iran’s foreign ministry to receive a “strong protest” over Saudi forces preventing an Iranian plane from landing in Sana’a, Yemen’s capital, by bombing the runway it was to land on.

“(E)ndangering the lives of the crew and members of the Iranian Red Crescent, who brought medical aid to Yemenis and wanted to transfer the wounded, is unacceptable,” a top Iranian diplomat is quoted as saying.

Sheriff Clarke Reveals If He’d Been Head Of Baltimore PD It Would’ve Gone VERY Differently

First of all, he said he would have defied the mayor's...

B. Christopher Agee 

With nearly 100 officers injured after days of civil unrest in Baltimore, Md., Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly spoke to Milwaukee County, Wis., Sheriff David Clarke about how such a situation might be avoided in the future. Speaking for his own department, Clarke said he begins by ensuring only trustworthy, professional officers remain on the staff.

“We have a code of conduct,” he said, “and I expect excellence out of my officers. I expect strict adherence to that code of conduct. When there are red flags … displayed in certain officers, you have to take some sort of action, some sort of corrective action.”

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

·         Sheriff Clarke Reveals If He’d Been Head Of Baltimore PD It Would’ve Gone VERY Differently

·         Think Baltimore Rioters Are Thugs? These People Say You’re Racist.

·         Liberal Sugar Daddy George Soros May Face A ‘Monster’ That Will Eat Away His Political Power

Clarke explained that he has been forced to do exactly that in the past.

“If it’s serious, I make it very clear with my officers,” he said. “If you cross the line and enter into criminal conduct, I will march you over to the district attorney’s office and get you criminally charged. I’ve had to do that. It’s not a fun thing to do; but we cannot lose the trust of the people we serve.”

O’Reilly brought up reports that Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake ordered officers to stand down in the face of growing riots this week, wondering if Clarke would have complied.

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

·         ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith To Baltimore Rioters: ‘Our Ancestors Would Be Ashamed’

·         Dear Al Sharpton: You Lying, Race-Baiting, Hobbling Bag Of…

·         High Schooler Asked By Teacher To Say Where He Gets His News… Gets An ‘A’ For His Response

“I’m going to have to defy that order,” he said, prompting the host to clarify that he would put his job on the line by doing what he felt was right.

“So, if you had been in Baltimore and you had received the order from the mayor to stand down,” O’Reilly wondered, “… you would have defied the order?”

Clarke made his position clear.

“Defied the order, sent my officers out there, made sure they had the proper resources, and made sure that they know that they have the authority to use a reasonable amount of force to accomplish their mission,” he confirmed.

Should cops be forced to stand down in the face of a threat like the Baltimore riots? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

FAITH UNDER FIRE

IS THIS OBAMA'S DECLARATION OF WAR ON CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS?

Solicitor general warns Supreme Court faith-based practices 'will be an issue'

 BOB UNRUH 

The yawning chasm of a potential loss of accreditation reportedly faced Gordon College just a few months back.

It seemed that the Christian school’s Statement of Life and Conduct included “homosexual practice” as a forbidden activity and that had riled the politically correct officials at the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

But, according to a report from the Gospel Coalition, that threat was removed when the association said its pending review of college practices was routine.

Now, however, that or a similar consequence could be facing every Christian college, university or other school in the nation – a threat that was issued directly by the Obama administration.

It came during the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court this week on whether the justices will mandate same-sex “marriage” across the country, as it already has been forced by individual federal judges on more than two dozen states.

The threat came from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli of the Obama administration during an exchange with Justice Samuel Alito.

Alito noted the Bob Jones University case, which involved not sexual orientation but racial issues.

“The court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” Alito asked.

Sure thing, Verrilli confirmed, in a way.

“You know, I … I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I … I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is … it is going to be an issue,” he said.

Reported the coalition, “The government, through its representative, has now signaled that Christian schools may soon be treated like racists and pariahs.”

The threat aligned with a warning from a decade ago, the coalition said, from law professor Jonathan Turley, who leans left and supports “gay” rights.

He had said, “Many organizations attract members with their commitment to certain fundamental matters of faith or morals, including a rejection of same-sex marriage or homosexuality. It is rather artificial to tell such groups that they can condemn homosexuality as long as they are willing to hire homosexuals as a part of that mission. It is equally disingenuous to suggest that denial of such things as tax exemption does not constitute a content-based punishment for religious views. … The denial of tax-exempt status presents a particularly serious threat to these organization…”

Coalition Editor Joe Carter explained the problem, “The government may soon say that any Christian school that refuses to accept same-sex marriage will lose its non-profit status. Fine, then they are forced to become for-profit companies. Nothing has really changed, right? Wrong. How many for-profit companies are allowed to refuse to accept same-sex marriage? Even if they can now, that will be forbidden if the court rules in favor of SSM. So the result will be the same: the government is saying that you will be forced to accept SSM or you lose the right to exist…”

At the blog for Albert Mohler, of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, he wrote that Marc D. Stern of the American Jewish Congress also had warned of the threat.

Years ago, he had predicted that opponents of “gay rights” would be unaffected, “within certain defined areas,” by their adoption.

“But in others, the impact will be substantial. I am not optimistic that, under current law, much can be done to ameliorate the impact on religious dissenters,” he said then.

Mohler also pointed out that during the arguments, Verrilli responded to a question from Chief Justice John Roberts about a requirement for a religious school that has married housing to offer that to same-sex couples.

“The solicitor general did not say no,” Mohler wrote. “Instead, he said that the federal government, at present, does not have a law banning discrimination in such matters on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Continued Mohler, “Make no mistake. The solicitor general of the United States just announced that the rights of a religious school to operate on the basis of its own religious faith will survive only as an ‘accommodation’ on a state by state basis, and only until the federal government passes its own legislation, with whatever ‘accommodation’ might be included in that law.”

He noted that the same rules also, inevitably, would apply to student admissions and faculty hiring.

“The solicitor general admitted that these liberties will be ‘accommodated’ or not depending on how states define their laws. And the laws of the states would lose relevance the moment the federal government adopts its own law,” he wrote.

Asked CNS news, “Is the Obama administration about to wage war on religious schools?”

The commentary continued, “This should not be an issue. Citizens and organizations that continue to believe the truth about marriage should not be penalized by the government. Even if the court says that all 50 states have to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage, there is no reason why the government should coerce or penalize institutions of civil society that simply ask to be free – without penalty – to continue to operate in accordance with the belief that marriage is a union of husband and wife.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/is-this-obamas-declaration-of-war-on-christian-schools/#DetoPCGS3riKKiYM.99

“FREEDOM IS  NOT  FREE”

“En mi opinión”

Blooger:  https://www.blogger.com/home

http://enmiopinionlrgm.wordpress.com/