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.
AMENPER:
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.
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.”
|
 |
|
How the
left rewrites history and defames the South
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”
No comments:
Post a Comment