¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Obama’s ‘gotcha’ moment reveals his ignorance of the law
Hot Air ^ | April 3, 2012 | Howard Portnoy


In his comments in the Rose Garden on Monday about the fate of his signature health care legislation, the president attempted at one point to hoist Republicans by their own petard. He said:

"I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example…."

He is right that conservatives have repeatedly lambasted liberal judges for their judicial activism. He is dead wrong, however, when he claims that the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare is a “good example.”

Far from creating law from the bench, the high court is carrying out its constitutionally mandated responsibility to rule on the constitutionality of a law, in this case a law passed by Congress. Nor would overturning the health care law represent “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” as the president further claimed.

For a man whose curriculum vitae includes lecturing on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, the president seems to be a little in the dark about both the Constitution and the law. Consider his suggestion later on in his remarks that this is “not an abstract argument” and “that people’s lives are affected.” Every decision the Supreme Court hands down is by its nature based on an abstract argument. If it weren’t—if it applied, for example, to a single case—it wouldn’t be much of a ruling. What is more, the vast majority if not all the cases heard before the court impact the lives of the American people in some way.

That the president has a half-baked view of the job of the courts is nothing new. In making his first appointment to the high court in May of 2009, he articulated the same incorrect assumptions:

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

He also spoke on that occasion on the importance of applying “empathy and understanding” to every legal decision. Both are essential ingredients of judicial activism but have nothing to do with the law.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

The Democrats’ Election Forgery Racket

The Democrats’ Election Forgery Racket

(party fraud has spread from Chicago outward under Obama)

National Review ^ | 04/04/2012 | Michelle Malkin


A few weeks ago, Obama senior adviser and seasoned Chicago operative David Axelrod joked on MSNBC about election corruption. Asked whether “vote early and often” scams had come to an end in his shady hometown, Axelrod snarked: “Well, certainly on the air.” Yuk, yuk, yuk.

Behind the scenes, Democrats have been busy faking petition signatures, forging ballots, and enlisting medical professionals to authorize fraudulent doctors’ notes for liberal teachers’ union operatives protesting Republican opponents. It’s no laughing matter.

This week, four Democratic officials in Indiana were hit with felony charges related to petition fraud in the state’s 2008 primary. The prosecutions are a result of the local South Bend Tribune newspaper’s investigation last fall into “hundreds of county residents’ signatures” forged on petitions used to put Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the Democratic primary ballot. At least two whistle-blowing government officials came forward to expose the forgery racket, which court documents say was formulated by Democratic party officials inside local party headquarters.

A veteran county Democratic party chair, Butch Morgan, resigned in October over the scandal; three employees in the St. Joseph County voter-registration office reportedly helped Morgan execute the scheme. Among the hundreds of unsuspecting residents whose names were illegally signed to the petitions: the prosecuting attorney in the case and a former Democratic governor of the state!

That’s the audacity of ACORN-**noallow** hoaxes.

Without the phony signatures, there’s a significant chance that Obama would not have qualified for the primary ballot — throwing the validity of the entire election into question.

Dr. Deb Fleming, the county’s Republican chairwoman, told the South Bend Tribune that the Democratic machine has dominated her backyard for decades. “They have ‘a culture of corruption’ here and throughout Indiana. ‘I’m sure there are other things. They’ve just never gotten caught,’ she speculated. ‘Because they’ve been in control of St. Joseph County for so long, they felt they could get away with it.’”

It’s a widespread culture of election corruption that has festered in Obama’s Chicago, crossed into Indiana, and bubbled up across the country.

On Tuesday, a New York judge set new trial dates for Democratic officials and political operatives accused of another ballot-fraud conspiracy. A first round of prosecutions against Democratic elections commissioner Edward McDonough and his co-defendant, former councilman Michael LoPorto, ended in mistrials last month. The two men also face separate voter-fraud charges involving a plot by Democrats to win the radical Working Families Party primary back in 2009. The WFP is a front group for President Obama’s dear old friends at fraud-plagued ACORN.

According to law-enforcement authorities, the ring of Democrats tried to rig the primary election for city council and county legislature by forging absentee ballots and ballot applications to ensure that their candidates also won the Working Families Party primary line.

Fox News Channel investigative reporter Eric Shawn noted that a whistle-blower in the case, WFP employee Sarah Couch, told investigators that her bosses “asked her to issue a Working Families Party press release that would ‘point blame at the Republican Party,’ and she refused to do so.” Another whistleblower, Democratic operative Anthony DeFiglio, told police that “faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.”

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, the state’s Medical Examining Board decided last month to investigate eleven additional doctors for writing fake sick notes for public union teachers who ditched their classrooms to protest GOP Governor Scott Walker. Nine other medical professionals have already received slaps on the wrist.

Primary petitions. Absentee ballots. Doctors’ orders. Fraudulent signatures are becoming the signature of desperate Democrats who play the electoral game by one set of rules: By Any Means Necessary.

Yet, progressives in the media and White House continue to strike a see-no-election-fraud, hear-no-election-fraud, speak-no-election-fraud pose. And Team Obama’s Axelrod supplies the laugh track. Yuck, yuck, yuck.

— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama Is Making the Case For His Own  Impeachment

By Tony Katz 4/4/2012

The President’s latest tactic, taking on the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review with  a preemptive striking against justices who might contemplate an unfavorable  ruling on ObamaCare, following on the heels of last week’s "open mic gaffe" in  which he explained Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that he’d have more “flexibility” to sacrifice American security after his re-election, lead to one  question: Is Barack Obama making his own case for  impeachment?

Obama is no longer fit for the job. I don’t say this  lightly. I don’t say it with glee or joy. And I don’t say it with malice. But  rather with recognition that the Office of the President must be protected. And  the citizens of the United States must protect themselves from a president who  is either incapable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities to the American  people and respect the Constitutionally proscribed limitations on his  powers.

Obama’s pronouncement about the Supreme Court was so  disingenuous and divisive as alone to warrant impeachment proceedings. Obama, a  one-time senior lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law  School, told a group of reporters at a Rose Garden news conference that since  the Affordable Care Act was passed by a “strong majority,” a finding of  unconstitutionality would constitute “judicial activism.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Judicial  activism is when judges exceed their appropriate powers and legislate from the  bench. Judicial review, in contrast, is one of the Supreme Court’s primary  functions.

As Leon Wolf of RedState asks, has the professor never  heard of Marbury vs. Madison (the 1803 case affirming  the Court’s right of judicial review)? Further, if Obama believes the Court has  no right to review - - and invalidate if necessary - - a law, so long as it was  duly passed by Congress, what does he believe IS the Court’s role? What exactly  did he teach his students at the University of Chicago?

On the international stage,  Obama stunned US citizens and allies with his thinly veiled promise to Medvedev  that he would put the missile shield - - a key component of our defense strategy - on the back burner after he’s re-elected, said with disdain for Americans.  This stunning statement is worthy of a conversation about treason. A  conversation that should take place in front of Chief Justice John  Roberts.


Obama was undaunted by the fact the mic was open, and  every disgusting word was caught on tape. Since then, he has twice joked about  the conversation and the open mic. TWICE! Once, though completely improper,  could have been dismissed as self-deprecating humor; trying to make the best out  of a bad situation (it would not have worked, but it could have been dismissed.) Twice means not only does Obama not think it's a big deal,  but no one around him thinks it's a big deal. How is that not  dangerous?

Obama sees himself as above the law, and sees the Law  as a detriment to his "moral" goals. As Ben Shapiro (also a Harvard educated  lawyer) pointed out:

President Obama has made it his mission to wield the  club against the other two branches of government in a manner unprecedented in  American history. Yesterday, Obama, rejecting the heart of judicial review for  purposes of his own power, stated, “I am confident that the Supreme Court will  not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law  that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That, of course, is precisely what the Supreme Court does on a daily  basis....But for Obama, the Supreme Court is an obstacle to his own  power.


In August, 2011, I wrote:

President Obama is  actively engaging in a pre-meditated attack on the United States Constitution,  and the American way of life.  His words are not missteps, like 57 states  or the insulting inability to properly pronounce the word corpsman. Obama is  attempting to plant the seed into the already vitriolic and boisterous  Progressives that the problem with America is the thing that makes America great – the rule of law that does not allow government to rule  us.


Nothing has changed. In fact, with this latest round  of assaults on the Court, they have gotten worse. Add to this Obama's unconstitutional recess appointments. How  long until we say aloud - The Nation Is Under Attack From  Within?

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Napolitano: 'The President Is Dangerously Close to  Totalitarianism'

April 7, 2012 | Reaganite Republican


Says power-mad Obama harbors 'extreme view'
on role of the Supreme  Court and Constitution...
Appearing on Fox the  other night, Judge Andrew Napolitano told Neil Cavuto  that Barack Obama's flippant disregard for all other branches but the Executive  is getting downright scary
(and that's just going by what he says in  public):__________________________________________________​_____________________
"I think the President is dangerously close to  totalitarianism. A few months ago he was saying, the Congress doesn’t  count. The Congress doesn’t mean anything. I’m going to rule by decree and  administrative regulation. Now he’s  basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they  think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only  branch of government standing, so I think he has some problems with  understanding the Constitution or accepting limitations on his power. Look, they are equal branches of  government, but with respect to what the law means, or the Constitution means,  the Court is superior to the President… No  President in modern times has questioned their authority. They’ve questioned the  way the authority has been exercised – not their right to make the decision. This is an extreme view of the  Supreme Court and the Constitution, one that has not been articulated since  Andrew Jackson was in the White  House...."


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


[ Editado ]
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


George Soros predicts riots, police state and class war for America

(from the architect himself) RT.com ^ | 25 January, 2012


Soros.jpg Soros image by ostracon321

George Soros, Chairman of Soros Fund Management


Billionaire investor George Soros has a new prediction for America. While it might be as dire as it gets for the financial wiz, this bet concerns more than just the value of the buck. According to Soros, there's about to be an all-out class war.

Soros, 81, previously bet against the British pound in the early 90s and made $1 billion off its collapse. In the years since, he’s remained active in investing, but also in advocacy. He’s helped keep Wikipedia afloat thanks to impressive contributions and through donations to the Tides Center, has indirectly funded Adbusters, the Canadian anti-capitalist magazine that put Occupy Wall Street on the map. Speaking to Newsweek recently, Soros neglected to acknowledge his past successes, but instead offered a word of warning: a period of “evil”is coming to the western world.

“I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career,” Soros tells Newsweek. “We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.”

Soros goes on to compare the current state of the western world with what the Soviet Union was facing as communism crumbled. Although he would think that history would have taught the globe a thing or two about noticing trends, Soros says that, despite past events providing a perfect example of what is to come, the end of an empire seems imminent.

“The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening,”adds Soros.

Soros goes on to say that as the crisis in the Eurozone only worsens, the American financial system will continue to be hit hard. On the way to a full-blown collapse, he cautions, Americans should expect society to alter accordingly. Riots will hit the streets, says Soros, and as a result, “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”

The recent adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and the proposed Enemy Expatriation Act, if approved, have already very well paved the way for such a society. Under the NDAA, the US government is allowed to indefinitely detain and torture American citizens suspected of terror crimes without ever bringing them to trial. Should lawmakers Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) get their Enemy Expatriation Act through Congress, the US will also be able to simply revoke citizenship without trial, essentially removing constitutional rights from anyone deemed a threat.

Others have cautioned that, as inequality becomes more rampant in America, the country’s citizens are becoming increasingly agitated with those on the other side of the extreme. In a recent survey released by the Pew Research Center, 66 percent of the adults studied believe that either “very strong” or “strong” conflicts exist between America’s elite and the impoverished, a statistic that has skyrocketed in recent years. Between 2009 and 20011, the proportion of those that sense conflicts exist as such between the class groups grew by 19 percentage points. While less than half of Americans fearing a fight brewing at the dawn of the Obama administration, today two-out-of-three Americans feel that there is a strong conflict between both extremes of society.

Addressing the issue of inequality, Soros tells Newsweek that the main issue that will make or break a reelection for US President Barack Obama will be whether or not the rich end up being taxed more. Among the current frontrunners in the Republic Party’s race for the GOP nomination, wealth and taxes have been of the biggest concern of party rivals. The top candidates have made millions off of investments, and at a time of immense inequality, represent what 99 percent of Americans don’t. Taxing the rich to a bigger degree might finally bring a chance, and Soros says, “It shouldn’t be a difficult argument for Obama to make.”

Soros adds that if the US manages to make it through the troubled times to come, it come allow the nation to enter another golden era. “In the crisis period, the impossible becomes possible. The European Union could regain its luster. I’m hopeful that the United States, as a political entity, will pass a very severe test and actually strengthen the institution,”he tells Newsweek.

With almost seven percent of Americans living below half of the poverty line, four unemployed Americans for each job, a shrinking middle class and an increasingly overzealous police state, it could very well be a tough road to get there, though.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


OBAMA Defending Fiscal  Insanity


In President Obama’s address to the Associated Press Luncheon on  Wednesday, he claimed that he is preventing disaster. Republican congressman  Paul Ryan’s proposed budget cuts would still allow publicly held debt to increase by  $5.5 trillion over the next ten years, but to Obama, they mean Americans  will be dying from starvation and defenseless from hurricanes and other natural  disasters.

“Demagoguery” is not too strong of a word to describe Obama’s  speech. Two million mothers and young children will be left without “access to  healthy food.” Violent crime will soar and illegal aliens will flood across our  borders because of cuts in law enforcement. “Hundreds of national parks” will  close. We won’t be able to “protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or  the food that we eat.” Airline flights will be cancelled or delayed, and safety  will be threatened in parts of the country. “Weather forecasts would become less  accurate.” Governors and mayors will “wait longer to order evacuations in the  event of a hurricane.” The list went on and on.

Remember how Obama promised that the spending was going to be temporary. But now Obama tells  Americans that not only can’t this spending be trimmed, it must be increased  dramatically. When the Congressional Office  evaluated Obama’s 2013 budget proposal in March, it concluded that his new  spending was going to add another $3.5 trillion to the deficit over  the next ten years, a deficit that was already expected to be huge.

As a candidate, Obama claimed that one cause of the economic  crisis was the large deficits the country was running, and he promised that he  would fix things by cutting government spending. During the third presidential  debate, just over two weeks before the election, Obama promised to rein in the  budget deficit.

When debate moderator Bob Schieffer asked Obama what he was  going to do about the deficit, Obama promised to cut it: “But there is no doubt  that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some  adjustments. Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net  spending cut.”

Or take Obama’s promise in the second presidential debate: “Actually, I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending  cut.” Obama ran to the right of McCain, who Obama claimed was the candidate who  was going to increase spending.

So what did we get? Obama racked up the largest  inflation-adjusted increases ever in government spending and the largest  deficits (even larger than those the U.S. ran in the worst part of World War  II), and it is hard to remember that his constant theme during the presidential  debates was “net spending cut.”

Obama blamed the bad economy during the fall of 2008 on Bush’s  profligate spending habits. Bush’s out-of-control spending, Obama pointed out,  had caused the $500 billion expected deficit for 2009. He blamed the spending increases and deficits under  Bush for the economic problems we were facing.

Just one week after the election, Obama began  talking about up to a $500 billion stimulus. Two weeks after the election, Larry  Summers told the Associated Press that the amount should be between $500 billion  and $700 billion. In the end, it turned out to be $825 billion. Then there were  four other jobs bills during the first two  years of his administration.

There was no new economic announcement in the week after the  election that could explain this complete reversal in Obama’s policies. The only  economics number released soon after the election was the November 7  unemployment report, showing that the unemployment rate had risen from 6.6 to  6.8 percent. Not good, but hardly a crisis by itself and definitely not worse  than Obama’s constant claim during the campaign that the economy was suffering  the worst financial crisis since the Depression.

The most obvious explanation for the big switch in Obama’s  pposition is that he always wanted a much bigger government, but he knew that  Americans wouldn’t vote for him if he openly campaigned on it. If there was ever  any doubt that Obama had lied to Americans when he promised that an Obama  administration would make government smaller, people just needed to listen to  his speech on Wednesday.

John R. Lott Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor and the co-author of  the just released Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What  We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future (John Wiley & Sons, March  2012).


Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



By Arnold Ahlert On April 12, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage |  No Comments

The so-called Republican “war on women” currently being  trumpeted by Democrats (with ample help from an ever-accommodating media) has  exposed the absurd depths of the leftist entitlement mentality and its disdain  for the concept of religious freedom. It was highlighted by the testimony of  Sandra Fluke, who contended that her birth control should be underwritten by  others regardless of their religious convictions.

Yet if war is defined as something that does genuine  damage to the interests of women, it is Democrats, via the sexual revolution and  its all-out attack on traditional values, who have waged a war against women for  decades. What has the Democratic war on women brought us?  

First and foremost, it has brought us the wholesale  destruction of the nuclear family, and the resultant poverty and crime that  attends it. Currently 41 percent of children are born to single mothers, most of  whom are low-income women in their early and mid-20s. In the black American  community, that percentage soars to a staggering 72 percent. Male child  abandonment is now a rampant aspect of our society.

These trends are directly connected to Democrats’ and  president Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” and the critical changes they made  to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC). A program once  reserved for funding once-married women who had lost the primary male supporter  of the family was expanded to include any household where there was no male  family head present.  

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted where such a change  would lead–when the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 24 percent among black  Americans and (4 percent for white Americans). He was excoriated by liberals  saying that a “lack of equal education and opportunity” were the true root of  the problem. 47 years and triple the number of out-of-wedlock births later,  liberals are still using the same rationale to defend their pposition It is a weak argument.

Education and opportunity, no matter how widely available,  requires at least a minimal effort on the part of the individual to attain  either. Yet various studies reveal the utter chaos that informs the lives of an  alarming number of children raised by single mothers: they comprise about 70  percent of juvenile murderers, delinquents, teenaged mothers, drug abusers,  dropouts, suicides and runaways.  

One might think that such a cultural reality would chasten  those Democrats dedicated to the idea of “alternative family lifestyles.” One  would be wrong. A steady stream of cultural sewage “celebrating” single  motherhood remains the order of the day among Democratic allies in Hollywood.  From Candace Bergen’s fatherless child on “Murphy Brown” in 1993, to “Jersey  Shore” and the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi in 2012, such  lifestyles continue to be promoted.  

Yet such promotion ought to be completely anathema to a  political party dedicated to class warfare and the growing divide between the  rich and the poor. Why? One of the outcomes of the sexual revolution was the “equalization” of sexual mores, as in women have been encouraged to adopt the  same kind of sexual promiscuity for which men have been routinely excused, or  even applauded. Yet reality intrudes: only women can get pregnant and men can,  and do, simply abandon their offspring. And while the advent of the pill and the  Roe v. Wade ruling 1973 relieved much of the potential calamity of unwanted  pregnancy, it also introduced a much greater level of  promiscuity.



Unfortunately, it is a level of promiscuity, despite the  prevalence of birth control, that has been handled much better by middle and  upper class women: between the years 1994 and 2006, the number of unintended  pregnancies among higher-income women fell by 29 percent. Lower income women? A  50 percent increase. And since single motherhood produces children six times  more likely to live in poverty–and 80 percent of long-term poverty occurs in  single-parent homes–the same class divide denounced by Democrats is the one they  are simultaneously promoting.  

Such promotion has reached absurd levels. A 17-year-old girl  at Pilgrim High School in Warwick, R.I. painted a mural depicting the  progression of a boy from childhood to adulthood that ends with a man and woman  wearing wedding rings, and standing hand-in-hand with child. She was forced to  paint it over when school officials contended that it might be offensive to  students who don’t come from a “traditional” family. Perhaps he should have been  depicted dropping the woman and child off at the social services department and  skipping town.

Last May, when Texas decided to bar Women’s Health  Program funding from abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, the Obama  administration retaliated in March, deciding to withhold $40,000,000 the state  received for its Medicaid program. Liberals in general have disdain for the idea  that marriage is one of the most reliable antidotes for poverty as evidenced  here and here. Their solution? More government spending on anti-poverty  programs.  

Yet like much of their agenda, the necessity of “more  government spending” is nothing more than an attempt to counteract both programs  and a cultural ethos championed by Democrats themselves. A 2008 study led by  Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi conservatively estimated  that single motherhood and male child abandonment cost the U.S. taxpayer $112  billion every year. While making no policy recommendations he further noted that  reducing these costs “is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and  legislators.” Syracuse University economics professor Tim Smeeding countered  that argument. “I have nothing against marriage–relationship-building is great.  But alone it’s not going to do the job. A full-employment economy would probably  be the best thing–decent, stable jobs,” he said. 

Which argument makes more sense? Certainly higher levels  of employment would help the nation. But as noted above, 70 percent of the  children who drop out of high school are raised by single mothers. The less  education one has, the higher one’s level of unemployment. In other words,  Democrats have the argument exactly backwards. 

Yet it remains viable. Despite the ravages engendered by  the erosion of traditional values such as marriage and family, substantial  numbers of American women remain convinced that government programs and policies  are viable substitutes for responsible behavior. And while “alternative family  lifestyles” are no doubt attractive to those who can afford them, the  pathologies engendered by many of those lifestyles suggests the “anything goes” culture endorsed by liberals in general, and the Democrat party in particular,  is far more destructive than advertised.

And make no mistake: when 41  percent of women are having children out of wedlock, Democrats are not just  waging a war against women.   It’s a war against children as well.


Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama contra la Iglesia


Obama vs. Cardenal   Dolan

La amenaza a la libertad religiosa en Estados Unidos   no  es  una broma, ni, cuando se afirma eso, se está exagerando. No  se  trata ya  de que  Obama esté llevando a cabo una política de  apoyo  económico a  prácticas que  católicos -y no sólo  católicos- consideran  criminales, como  es el aborto. Es que   ahora quiere obligar a que  esas prácticas sean  subvencionadas desde  las propias  instituciones  religiosas. Y ahí es donde  se entra  de lleno en el ataque a la   libertad religiosa.
La Iglesia católica en Estados Unidos tiene miles   de   instituciones sociales, como colegios -casi cada parroquia  tiene  uno-, hospitales, asilos, comedores sociales, centros de atención  a   drogodependientes  o a emigrantes, etc. Como obliga la ley,  los  empleados  de estos centros tienen  un seguro médico para  sus  trabajadores.
Sin embargo, ese seguro no incluye el acceso a    determinadas  prestaciones que van en contra de la moral católica.   Por  ejemplo, si uno de esos  empleados quiere abortar, el seguro  que  le ofrece  la Iglesia no le paga el  aborto, se lo tendrá  que pagar él  por su cuenta.  O si quiere utilizar   anticonceptivos, los había  pagado de su bolsillo en  la farmacia.
Pues bien, ahora Obama quiere que en esos   seguros  se  incluyan cosas que van abiertamente contra la moral   católica. Deberán  ofrecer  anticonceptivos y también píldoras   abortivas. De esta manera, la  Iglesia se hará  cómplice de hechos  que  considera gravísimos, hasta el  punto de que excomulga al   que los  comete, como es el caso del  aborto.
¿Por qué hace esto Obama?  ¿Le  preocupa el interés de los empleados de las instituciones católicas, a  fin de  que no gasten más de la cuenta si quieren llevar una vida contraria  a lo que  indica la moral de la empresa para la que trabajan? Estoy seguro  de que esto no  es así. Creo que Obama ha encontrado la manera de asfixiar  a las obras sociales  católicas, de abocarlas al cierre o de forzarlas a ir  contra sus principios, con  lo cual quedarían totalmente  desprestigiadas.
Es más sutil que Fidel  Castro,   que cerró todo lo que tenía la Iglesia en Cuba, pero busca  el  mismo objetivo. Los radicales -y  Obama lo es cada vez más- saben que la Iglesia tiene, gracias a  sus  obras sociales, un gran  prestigio y por eso quieren acabar con  ellas.  Si cerraran todos  las instituciones católicas en Estados  Unidos se  haría un gran daño a  millones de  personas, pero eso  a Obama le da  igual. No le preocupan los pobres. El odio se está  convirtiendo cada  vez más en su motivación.
Los obispos   norteamericanos  han plantado  cara y no van a ceder, con el  cardenal  Dolan a su cabeza. Va  a ser una guerra  dura. Quizá  Obama gane  algunas batallas, pero terminará perdiéndola. Su futuro   va a ser como  el de Zapatero, su amigo: una retirada deshonrosa y   desprestigiada, donde  todos los que hoy le apoyan le  volverán la  espalda y se  avergonzarán  de él. http://www.magnificat.tv/es/node/658/2
Mensajes: 457
Registrado: ‎03-08-2012