Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: September 2015

Fin de ciclo

La fórmula Scioli-Zannini marca otro fin de ciclo para los vaticinadores del fin de ciclo K. La sensación de derrota entre opositores políticos y mediáticos, su desprecio por la voluntad popular y la descalificación de candidatos y votantes reniegan de la democracia. Máximo, Wado, Axel, El Cuervo y la bancada camporista. El regreso de Nilda y el liderazgo de Cristina, sin necesidad de candidatura propia. La partida concluyó con el primer diálogo entre CFK y Scioli desde que se conocen.

Cristina no competirá en ninguna categoría

Por Horacio Verbitsky

A la medianoche de ayer, Daniel Scioli-Carlos Zannini fue la única fórmula presidencial registrada por el Frente para la Victoria; Cristina no competirá en ninguna categoría; su hijo Máximo Kirchner será candidato a diputado nacional por Santa Cruz, Axel Kicillof por la CABA (seguido por Nilda Garré y Andrés Larroque) y Eduardo de Pedro encabezará la lista en la provincia de Buenos Aires, lo cual adelanta que en caso de victoria presidirá la Cámara de Diputados, mientras Zannini será presidente del Senado. Si todos los candidatos de La Cámpora en puestos prominentes resultaran electos, la bancada de la organización rondaría el diez por ciento de la Cámara de Diputados, un subloque decisivo dentro del FpV. Para ponderar qué significarían esos 25 a 30 diputados, vale la pena recordar que la segunda minoría actual tiene 35 (UCR) y la tercera 18 (Unión Pro). Será una acumulación institucional congruente con su capacidad de organización y movilización.

Hasta 2017

La extensa conversación en la que Cristina y Scioli transaron todos los detalles es la primera que supera los cinco minutos desde que se conocen. Que se haya extendido por dos horas fue el dato central que Scioli comunicó exultante a su círculo íntimo. Todos dejaron trascender que no se habló de la conformación del próximo gabinete, sino de la relación entre ambos, que será de inevitable cooperación. Si Scioli se impone, el kirchnerismo contempla por lo menos seis meses de silencio mientras inicia su gobierno. En La Plata se da por seguro que Alberto Pérez comandará el gabinete nacional como lo ha hecho con el bonaerense; que el contador familiar Rafael Perelmiter seguirá siendo el principal consejero económico aunque no ocupará el ministerio; que el ministro de Salud provincial, Alejandro Collia, ocupará la misma cartera en la Nación y que sólo dependerá de la voluntad de Lino Barañao su continuidad como ministro de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva. Scioli contempla dividir Planificación y Servicios, para desgajar Energía, ministerio que ocuparía el saliente gobernador de Neuquén, Jorge Sapag. También habría espacio en el gabinete para Maurice Closs cuando concluya su mandato como gobernador de Misiones pero no para el mendocino Francisco Pérez, cuyo enfrentamiento con Cristina puso fin al record de permanencia del muñidor electorero de la presidencia Juan Carlos Mazzón (1989-1999 y 2002-2015). La Secretaría de Derechos Humanos será ocupada por un miembro de la familia Carlotto. Para el ministerio de Agricultura ha pensado en el ex intendente de Rafaela Omar Perotti, que hizo una excelente elección en Santa Fe. También podría ser candidato a senador y renunciar luego para sumarse al gabinete nacional. Scioli dice que hará todo lo que sea preciso para conservar una óptima relación con CFK, aunque entre sus allegados hay versiones encontradas: desde quienes fundamentan esa conducta en el presunto descubrimiento por su parte de que necesita que un proyecto como el que conduce Cristina lo contenga y de sus votos en el Congreso para la sanción de las leyes, hasta aquellos que afirman que esa subordinación sólo durará hasta el 10 de diciembre. Lo más probable es que la armonía se mantenga al menos hasta las elecciones legislativas de 2017, cuando Scioli tendría la posibilidad de intervenir en la confección de las listas. En cualquier caso, la apuesta de Cristina muestra una visión histórica, en la que las ventajas inmediatas y el trapicheo electoral se insertan en una construcción de largo plazo. Está intentando hacer ahora lo que Perón postuló, pero no pudo concretar, cuando dijo que sólo la organización vence al tiempo.

Tres por dos

El gobernador de la provincia de Buenos Aires informó que él había propuesto la nominación de Zannini y que la presidente lo había aceptado. Dentro del gobierno nacional las versiones se trifurcan, entre quienes avalan ese relato, aquellos que dicen que desde la presidencia alertaron a Scioli de que Cristina estaba esperando que él escogiera a ese acompañante y quienes cuentan que fue la propia presidente quien le comunicó el nombre de su Secretario Legal y Técnico, pero que antes el candidato le había pedido que ella dispusiera quién debía ser. Como era de prever, la lectura unánime de los medios y políticos de la oposición fue que ella le (im)puso el vice a Scioli, lo cual une la útil táctica de menoscabar a quien representará en los comicios al Frente para la Victoria con la agradable estrategia de presentar a la presidente como una monologuista despótica. A esto contribuye la sobreactuación de Florencio Randazzo, en quien todos los opositores han descubierto al único peronista digno que les confirma la regla. Durante varios días estarán distraídos con los entretelones verdaderos o falsos de ese melodrama: si lloró Randazzo, como cuentan los cristinistas, o la presidente, según dejan trascender los que descarrilaron con el ministro; parafrasearán las frases grandilocuentes como estaré en cada pasaporte o en cada vagón nuevo; confrontarán las versiones encontradas acerca de si Cristina le pidió que desistiera de su candidatura o él lo hizo ofendido por la designación de Zannini para acompañar a Scioli e incluso rechazó el ofrecimiento presidencial de que llevara en su fórmula a un camporista notorio. Así, esos opositores se distraen de las cuestiones de fondo que explican la desmedrada circunstancia en la que ellos mismos se han puesto. El mejor ejemplo lo brindó el insultador exaltado Jorge Lanata en la radio cabecera del Grupo Clarín, cuando dio por hecho que el Frente para la Victoria volverá a imponerse y se dedicó a repartir culpas: la “miopía, miseria y negocio”, de una oposición inútil y que hace todo mal, por no haberse “unido todos… de la izquierda hasta la derecha”, pero también “la estupidez de parte de la gente”, que no corta boleta. Lo único gracioso de ese exabrupto, despectivo de representantes y representados, es que no incluye dentro de la oposición a la empresa que lo contrata, ni a sí mismo, que fue su principal ariete en la fallida empresa de demolición del kirchnerismo y descrédito en la política.

Cualquiera sea la versión que se acepte de lo sucedido, es ostensible que Cristina reafirmó su conducción en forma impresionante y al mismo tiempo reconoció con fría racionalidad sus propios límites, mientras proyectó hacia el futuro su visión del país, mediante la renovación generacional y política de los cuadros partidarios. Lo había anticipado en su mensaje a la Asamblea Legislativa del 1 de marzo (“dejo un país cómodo para la gente e incómodo para los dirigentes si piensan sacarle los derechos adquiridos a la gente”) y en su último patio la semana pasada (“Estaré en la calle con el pueblo”). Volvió a decirlo ayer en Rosario, en un discurso en el que contrapuso la construcción colectiva a las personalidades aisladas y por lo tanto manejables. Ni la ratificación de su liderazgo ni los pasos reflexivos que dio para lograrlo son constataciones halagüeñas para quienes soñaban con el ocaso de una dictadora furiosa que apuesta a la derrota porque no tiene forma de imponer sus deseos y cuya fuerza se desbanda en auxilio de la victoria de cualquiera que venga.

Dos culturas

Es interesante reconstruir las respectivas jugadas de estos emergentes de dos culturas políticas tan distintas. La primera candidatura de Cristina, en 2007, enfureció al republicanismo sui generis que se cultiva aquí, y despertó comparaciones con Isabel Martínez, Imelda Marcos o los Kim coreanos. Según Néstor Kirchner, el intento de Héctor Magnetto de vetar la postulación de su esposa estuvo en el origen del conflicto con el Grupo Clarín, cuya versión difiere. La represalia fue el intento del Grupo para convertir un vulgar lock-out patronal por la presión impositiva en una gesta patriótica y de poner al gobierno a la defensiva con reiteradas denuncias por corrupción que hicieron del periodismo y la Justicia armas arrojadizas y campo de batalla. Esto pareció surtir efecto con el mediocre resultado oficialista en las elecciones de medio término de 2009 y la muerte de Kirchner en octubre de 2010 pareció el golpe final, al frustrar el proyecto de alternancia presidencial. Pero el ejercicio del mando de Cristina, que ni tuvo tiempo para hacer el duelo, y su espectacular consagración en 2011 como la presidente con mayor votación y diferencia con la segunda fuerza en las tres décadas de la democracia argentina deshicieron el mito del doble comando sin el cual no podría gobernar. El problema de la sucesión se difirió hasta las elecciones legislativas de 2013. Scioli ya asomaba como opción atractiva para los peronistas que gobiernan las provincias y municipios más poblados. Negoció un posible acuerdo con Sergio Massa, pero a último momento decidió permanecer en el Frente para la Victoria, intuyendo que el Frente Renovador era una aventura sin destino y que de irles bien entonces, Massa le haría a él en 2015 lo que entonces le estaba haciendo a Cristina. Ese año el kirchnerismo no logró los 2/3 de ambas cámaras que hubieran sido necesarios para habilitar una nueva candidatura de Cristina o instituir un régimen parlamentario como el alemán o el español sin restricciones cronológicas para la mayoría. Los conocidos de siempre volvieron a decretar su final e instalaron la idea del pato rengo cuya máxima aspiración sería llegar al final del mandato sin tropiezos. Al mismo tiempo, intentaron que tal cosa no ocurriera, con una serie de operaciones económicas, judiciales y de difusión por demás conocidas. De este modo creían asegurar que no incidiera en el diseño de la sucesión.

El kirchnerismo llegó a las fechas decisivas sin una candidatura propia competitiva, lo cual revela sus limitaciones pero también el tiempo que requiere la maduración de un proceso que comenzó en forma abrupta en medio de una gran crisis. La presidente apeló entonces a un diseño múltiple: respaldar a uno de los postulantes de modo que se desprendiera del lote inicial, poner en duda que fuera a autorizar la candidatura de Scioli dentro del Frente para la Victoria y dejar correr una posible presencia propia en las listas, ya fuera para un cargo ejecutivo o legislativo en la provincia de Buenos Aires o en el parlamento del Mercosur. Una clave fue el Congreso Justicialista que confirió la lapicera de anotar candidaturas nacionales a Zannini y bonaerenses a De Pedro, ambos asistidos por el especialista Coco Landau, El Hombre del Saco Blanco. La oposición presentó la última hipótesis como una búsqueda de fueros para protegerse de investigaciones judiciales, cosa que hoy sigue repitiendo en relación con Máximo y Axel. Esto implica una completa ignorancia de la ley de fueros, que no brinda inmunidad contra el procesamiento, y pasa por alto que no existen causas que comprometan a Cristina. Este despliegue persuadió a Scioli de que sólo podría llegar con Cristina, nunca en contra de ella. No fueron en vano los 15 años que le lleva a Massa. Cuando se publicaron los cables secretos de la embajada estadounidense en los cuales el ex jefe de gabinete denigraba a Kirchner ante funcionarios de la potencia mundial, Scioli se limitó a destacar que nada equivalente encontrarían sobre él, porque no decía en privado nada distinto que en público (al menos no con esos interlocutores, aunque para una valoración más completa habría que ponderar también cómo se comportan en las fiestas reservadas de La Ñata su hermano Pepe y su ex ministro Carlos Stornelli).

Las diferencias entre el kirchnerismo y Scioli no pueden ser exageradas y constan en todos los archivos. Pero igual que en 2006, cuando Kirchner le pidió que se presentara como candidato a la gobernación bonaerense, es el único dirigente que permite enfrentar con optimismo a Maurizio Macrì y su alianza con radicales y cívicos libertadores. Recapitular ahora en qué se parecen ambos hijos de papá tampoco tiene sentido. Aunque hubieran sido gemelos separados al nacer (y ésta es una desmesura intencional para extremar el razonamiento), las circunstancias políticas en las que cada uno llega y las apoyaturas y limitantes con que cuentan reducen la importancia de esa dotación genética, como diría Lucas Llach. A medida que se acercaba la fecha y con absoluta conciencia de los recelos que debía sortear, Scioli incrementó sus muestras de acatamiento a Cristina, hasta llegar a interpretar sus deseos más recónditos como si fueran órdenes o, dicho al revés, a internalizar sus órdenes como si fueran deseos para él. Tal como se informó aquí en abril (“Nietzsche en campaña”), el alineamiento de Scioli ya se evidenciaba entonces “en el abandono en manos de la presidente de las nóminas de diputados nacionales (como ocurrirá en todo el país) e incluso el nombre de su candidato a vicepresidente (cosa que CFK no le pidió ni le pedirá, pero Scioli está desarrollando incluso dotes de adivinación)”. De este modo, cada uno fue recortando el espacio de maniobra del otro, hasta llegar al desenlace de esta semana, cuando ambos reconocieron en forma implícita que juntos ganan y separados pierden. El desconcierto que esto produjo en las otras comunidades políticas fue enorme, lo cual se refleja en las evaluaciones contradictorias con que recibieron la novedad: desde que Zannini no le suma votos a Scioli, hasta que lo coloca en condiciones de imponerse en la primera vuelta. A la Propuesta Republicana le trastrocó todos los cálculos. Sus fórmulas para la presidencia y para la gobernación de la provincia de Buenos Aires no parecían decididas con el asesoramiento del opinólogo ecuatoriano Jaime Durán Barba sino de la revista Barcelona, que postula “una solución europea para los problemas argentinos”. Tanto Maurizio Macrì y Gabriela Michetti, como María Eugenia Vidal y Cristian Ritondo son porteños. Esta limpieza étnica revelaba tanto la falta de inserción en el resto del país de un partido cabano como el escaso aprecio por la capacidad de discernimiento de los votantes, que irían como niños boquiabiertos detrás de los globos de colores. Los resultados del escrutinio provisorio de Santa Fe fueron un duro golpe a las expectativas de los amarillos, cuya segunda acepción es la de una persona pálida a causa de una enfermedad o de un susto, y que en otros países americanos se usa para significar cosas peores. Por eso corrieron a Ritondo de la candidatura a la vicegobernación para hacerle lugar a un doble mestizaje, con un bonaerense que, además, es radical. Confían en perder por algo menos y tener alguien a quien hacer responsable.

Advertisements

 Para compartir > http://wp.me/p2jyCr-DB

ARTICULO 29

CONSTITUCIÓN NACIONAL ARGENTINA

La ÚNICA CONSTITUCIÓN DEL MUNDO con una HERRAMIENTA tan poderosa como el ARTICULO 29.

“LOS PODEROSOS DEL MUNDO” … ¡NOS ESTÁN MIRANDO!

¿LA SABREMOS USAR?

LA SUMA DEL PODER PUBLICO

Declaración de derechos y Garantías

Articulo 29 CN-1853

El Congreso no puede conceder al Ejecutivo Nacional, ni las Legislaturas Provinciales a los Gobernadores de Provincia facultades extraordinarias, ni la suma del poder público, ni otorgarles sumisiones y supremacías por las que la vida, el honor o las fortunas de los argentinos queden a merced de gobiernos o persona alguna. Actos de esta naturaleza llevan consigo una nulidad insanable, y sujetarán a los que los formulen, consientan o firmen, a la responsabilidad y pena de los infames traidores a la Patria.

. . .

A Los Inversores, Prestamistas o Usureros del Mundo:

Esta es una lista de sinónimos. Elija Ud. mismo el mejor con que se sienta cómodo para que los demás lo identifiquen, y olvídese del resto. Tranquilícese: No existe mortal, ni nación perfecta en este mundo; y La Republica Argentina es La Mejor. Argentina está despertando de la “Equizofrenia-Anarquia” a la que fue empujada el 10 de Septiembre de 1930 (POTUS31). El Pueblo Argentino no es ladrón; el gaucho criollo no pudo impedir con solo su facón, que ladrones ocupen su tapera([i]) pero ni con un cobre ajenos se queda.

 

Inversionistas Prestamistas Usureros
(sinónimos) (sinónimos) (sinónimos)
Capitalistas Bancos Avaros
Financieros Financieras Tacaños
Financieras Mutualistas Mezquinos
Negociantes Cambistas Ruines
Inversores Prestadores/Prestadoras Agarrados
Inversoras Mutuantes Rastreros
Negociantes Codiciosos
Acreedores / Acreedores Egoístas
Avariciosos Avarientos

 

Y Los Libres del Mundo Responden:

Al Gran Pueblo Argentino:

¡SALUD!

Q.D.L.R.

[i]) El Rancho puede ser pobre, el techo de paja, … pasar la lluvia y el sol, … pero El Rey NO”. … Esto no es originario de Argentina, es heredado de la cultura inglesa y de su constitución no escrita, iniciada con La Carta Magna.   Argentina nunca tuvo reyes y a los títulos de nobleza de los Borbones y toda su corte, los anuló para siempre en 1813 … Esto no es una lección de historia, es solo una advertencia para la lista de sinónimos de arriba; para que no olviden que si estaban haciendo “negocios” con “ocupas ladrones” y cobraron altísimos intereses usureros por ese “altísimo riesgo” fue sabiéndolo y nadie los obligó. Ahora (como dicen los Porteños) : “Andá a Cantárselo a Gardel … o como dicen los gauchos de tierra adentro … “Agárrate Catalina, que vamo a galopiar…”

Si Cristina consiguió llegar hasta aquí, con únicamente el 50%, de los Argentinos … y solo el FSIA, … JUNTOS con Mauricio somos el 100% del Pueblo Argentino y podemos usar el FSIA y el PCPA (Qui Tam y Whistlebloers against Fraud y toda la legislación Yanqui (USA) y La del UK para recuperar todo ek Oro Patagonico robado y arreglar cuentas Legal y Constitucionalmente… algo que NUNCA deb imos dejar de hacer.

Que Devuelvan Lo Robado

Q.D.L.R.

Blessing or Scourge? Capitalism through the Eyes of Pope Francis

 CATO INSTITUTE dorado
http://www.cato.org/events/blessing-or-scourge-capitalism-through-eyes-pope-francis?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=982295987a-upcoming-events&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-982295987a-141820070&goal=0_395878584c-982295987a-141820070&mc_cid=982295987a&mc_eid=37a4448f40

 

Policy Forum

September 15, 2015 12:00PM to 1:30PM

Hayek Auditorium

Featuring John Garvey, President, The Catholic University of America; Michael Sean Winters, Journalist, National Catholic Reporter; and Jay W. Richards, Executive Editor, The Stream, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute’s Centre on Wealth, Poverty and Morality; moderated by Marian L. Tupy, Editor, HumanProgress.org.

By returning the focus of the Catholic Church to the plight of the poor, Pope Francis has become much loved and admired. His prestige and influence is commensurate with his humanity and humility. But is Francis right about capitalism and its consequences? Is it true that capitalism is a form of exploitation that leads to poverty and inequality? Or is it the only proven way of dramatically reducing poverty and, even, achieving unprecedented material abundance? Please join our distinguished panel for a discussion of Pope Francis’s economics, and the Papal interpretation of economic history and the state of the world.

ALSO SEE:   OTRA VEZ! … PAPA FRANCISCO! (Dic/2013)

http://wp.me/p2jyCr-ws 

http://www.cato.org/events/blessing-or-scourge-capitalism-through-eyes-pope-francis?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails&utm_campaign=982295987a-upcoming-events&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_395878584c-982295987a-141820070&goal=0_395878584c-982295987a-141820070&mc_cid=982295987a&mc_eid=37a4448f40

DECEMBER 11, 2013 10:37AM

¡OTRA VEZ,  Papa Francisco!

 

By ALBERTO BENEGAS LYNCH, JR.

 

This is not the first time I’ve commented on the socioeconomic ideas of the current Pontiff of the Catholic Church. However, Time’s newly named Person of the Year Pope Francis unfortunately insists once again on statist ideas that go against an open society based on free markets.

No doubt this has a clear moral dimension given that the tradition of classical liberalism (and its modern advocacy) is based on mutual respect and the allocation of property rights as moral support of its philosophical, legal and economic proposals. Hence Adam Smith’s first book in 1759 was titled The Theory of Moral Sentiments – a concern held by the leading exponents of that noble tradition.

I do not want to repeat here arguments that I’ve already stated in my previous pieces. Rather, I will restrict my comments to the most salient socioeconomic aspects of the Pope’s new document.

The heart of the document is in the second chapter. To get an idea of the spirit that prevails, it is necessary to start with a somewhat lengthy quotation:

Just as the commandment ´Thou shalt not kill´ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ´thou shalt not´ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. […] Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

The Pope’s reflections are surprising due to the inaccuracies they contain. First and foremost, it should be clarified that the world is very far from having competition and open markets. To varying degrees, nations have adopted measures in which the Leviathan of government is ever fatter and ever more vehemently tramples the rights of people through multiple absurd regulations, colossal public debts and spending, unbearable taxes, and increasingly aggressive government interventions–none of which are mentioned by the Pope in his new paper.

However, the Pope opposes competition and free markets, which he says “kill” as a result of the survival of the fittest, not realizing that those who accumulate the greatest wealth today are often not the entrepreneurs who most efficiently meet the needs of their neighbors but professional lobbyists who, allied with political power, miserably exploit the needy. It is also worth noting that unemployment is an inevitable consequence of legislation that seeks wages that are higher than those that capitalization rates allow, as if we could get rich by decree. Such market rates are unfortunately undermined by government policies that prevail. Market rates constitute the sole reason for the rise in people’s standard of living. If we realize that the causes do not reside in the prevailing climate conditions or in natural resources (recall that Africa is the continent with the most natural resources while Japan is a wasteland where only 20 percent of the land is habitable), we can conclude that such rates permit higher wages and income in real terms.

If a house painter from Angola moves to Canada, he will see his income increase to four times what he had been earning. But it is not that the Canadian is more generous than the Angolan, rather that he is obligated to pay those wages given the investment rates in his country. That is why in places where the aforementioned rates are high, things such as personal housekeeping services are very rare. For example, it is not that an average American would not like to have these services, but that, with few exceptions, she can not afford it.

It is interesting that the Pope refers to compassion in the way he does, given that the contradiction that is the welfare state has not only penalized the most needy and has led to their increased marginalization, but has degraded the notion of charity. Charity, properly understood, refers to the voluntary surrender of personal resources, not to a third party forcibly taking something from someone else’s labor.

The values and principles of a free society do not kill. What annihilates is the statism that has been in force for a long time now. It is important to cite the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” but one must also remember “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” In this sense, I consider the Pope’s advice, based on a quote from St. John Chrysostom, especially dangerous when the Pope writes, “I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: ‘Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs.’”

That is the aggressive advice on property rights that the current Pontiff sends to today’s political leaders? Isn’t the misfortune the world already experiences for disparaging the values of liberty enough? And is this an invitation to confiscate the Vatican’s riches or was he referring only to the riches of those who are outside its walls and have legitimately acquired them?

The Pope continues, “Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. […] This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root.”

First, it must be stated that in a free society income and wealth inequality are the inevitable consequence of purchases–and lack thereof–that people carry out of supermarkets (and their equivalents) and reflect the degree to which customers consider they benefit. The businessman who succeeds profits and the one who errs incurs a loss. On the other hand, the inequalities derived from political privileges are an assault on the fruits of someone else’s labor by robber barons through bailouts and other frauds. With the support of nefarious institutions such as the IMF, government leaders in poor countries steal from taxpayers and open numerous bank accounts in more developed countries with the purpose of safeguarding their ill-gotten wealth accumulated by irresponsible policies that they themselves implemented.

But what is most worrying is that, put into context, the Pope seems to be justifying violence as a reaction to the competitive system, its free markets, and its respect for property rights.

It is also prudent to note that so-called “equal opportunity” is incompatible with equality before the law. If a mediocre tennis player played with a professional and the former is expected to be granted equal opportunity, the latter would have to, for example, be handcuffed, thereby violating his right. The point is to improve everyone’s opportunities but not equalize them, given that everyone is different, unique and inimitable. Equality is beforethe law, not through it.

Our healthy concern about poverty is not resolved by intensifying statist and socialist measures, but rather by promoting the establishment of institutional frameworks by which everyone’s rights are respected. If it is considered a good thing to be poor in the material sense and not in the evangelical spiritual meaning, charity would be out of the question because it would condemn those who received it. And if it is said that the Church is of the poor, it should devote itself to the rich since the poor would already be saved. Moreover, we are all rich or poor depending on whom we compare ourselves to. Of course, it is alarming and shocking to see the misery in which so many live, but it is imperative to understand that such a situation is the consequence of the permanent attacks to progress by governments that, instead of limiting themselves to guaranteeing rights, destroy the possibilities of elevating the condition of so many people whose dignity has been hurt by inflation, unprecedented fiscal pressures, and tremendous obstructions to peaceful contractual arrangements that do not violate the rights of others. In the places where these impoverishing policies have not taken place, things have been allowed to get better in terms of production of food, medicine, education, housing and many other manifestations of progress that lifted our ancestors out of the original condition of living in caves and misery – not achieved by magic but with work, savings, and perseverance in a system of liberty that incentivizes creativity and respect for others.

Along this line of argument, it is very important to keep in mind biblical considerations on poverty and material wealth to find the meaning of these terms in the context of the moral values ​​that should prevail over all other considerations, in accordance with the above two Commandments. Note that they both implicate the importance of private property, which is entirely in harmony with the principles of an open society. As such, in Deuteronomy (8:18), “But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he swore unto thy fathers, as it is this day.” In 1 Timothy (5:8), “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” In Matthew (5:3) “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” lashing out against he who puts the material before love for God, in other words “…he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God” Luke (12:21). In Proverbs (11:18), “The wicked worketh a deceitful work: but to him that soweth righteousness shall be a sure reward.” In Psalms (62:10), “Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them.” And in Matthew (6:24), “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

I know that the Pope is infused with the best intentions, but the intentions and kindness of the person – as is the case here – are not relevant; what matter are the policies that are carried out. In this context, finally, it is interesting to keep in mind the provisions of the International Theological Commission that proclaimed in its Human Development and Christian Salvation (June 30, 1977):

Theology, however, cannot deduce concrete political norms sheerly from theological principles, and so the theologian cannot settle profound sociological issues by theology’s specific resources. Theological treatises that strive to build a more human society must take into account the risks that the use of sociological theories involves. In every instance these theories must be tested for their degree of certitude, inasmuch as they are often no more than conjectures and not infrequently harbor explicit or implicit ideological elements that rest on debatable philosophical assumptions or on an erroneous anthropology. This is true, for instance, of significant segments of analyses inspired by Marxism and Leninism. Anyone who employs such theories and analyses should be aware that these do not achieve a greater degree of truth simply because theology introduces them into its expositions.

The fanatics who always say amen to everything are complicit in the problem, as the Pope himself said when referring to courtiers: “they are the lepers of the Church.” If it was up to them – other differences aside – we’d still have the Borgias.

______________________________

 

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CHRISTIAN SALVATION*

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1976_promozione-umana_en.html

 

INTRODUCTION

The problem of the relationship between human development and Christian salvation is of considerable significance everywhere. This is especially evident since the Second Vatican Council, where the Church paid uncommon attention to issues of an appropriate world order within the context of Christian responsibility. Within Latin America and elsewhere, it was different types of liberation theology that increasingly won attention. The International Theological Commission, in its annual meeting, 4-9 October 1976, occupied itself less with individual treatises and individual tendencies, [and] more with basic issues touching the relationship between human development and Christian salvation.

The pages that follow should be regarded as an imperfect abridgment of the principal results. This final report takes account of the difficulties inherent in the issues studied and the current status of theological discussion and research. The theological tendencies in question are many and varied, subject to enormous changes; there is constant self-correction; they are intimately linked with social and economic conditions and the political situation in the world and in different geographical areas. Nor should we overlook the disputes that such theological treatises have occasioned on many sides, because theology risks being translated into politics and hurting the genuine unity of the Church. Given this state of affairs, the International Theological Commission wants to address itself to the discussion for a specific purpose: to search out the potential and the risk in such tendencies.

Karl Lehmann
Chairman of the Subcommittee

 

  1. WORLD POVERTY AND INJUSTICE AS SPRINGBOARD FOR A THEOLOGICAL MOVEMENT

 CHICAGO SUN TIMES

WORLD TRADE CENTER

(14th Years Ago)

 

2001 – 11 de Septiembre – 2015

Sincerely,

Senator Mark Kirk

11 de SEPTIEMBRE 2015

After September 11, volunteers from all corners of the United States came to ground zero. These men and women stepped forward to confront the horror of that day for days, weeks and months to come.

Killed on 9/11 were 2,977 men, women and children, and the wounds our nation suffered will never be forgotten. The victims we forget are those first responders who still suffer serious health problems — like respiratory illnesses and cancers caused by toxins and carcinogens inhaled at the terror sites. Many of those first responders who suffer in silence today are right here in Illinois.

One of those unrecognized heroes is Arthur Noonan, a retired Chicago firefighter who volunteered at ground zero and contracted leukemia in 2004.  Noonan served 30 years with the Chicago Fire Department before retiring in 2004 because of his cancer diagnosis. He has been left out of a settlement that covers the health claims of more than 10,000 workers at the World Trade Center site, leaving the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program as one of his only options for health care and support.

The program was designed to provide healthcare access and care for those who are suffering from these toxin-induced illnesses. Signed into law in 2011, the WTC Health Program provided healthcare treatment for our first responders like Arthur. But the program’s benefits, including medical monitoring and victim compensation, are set to begin expiring in October.

We cannot allow that to happen. The program has monitored the illnesses and injuries of more than 63,000 first responders and more than 7,800 injured survivors, 170 of whom live in Illinois. Currently, more than 33,000 responders and survivors have an illness or injury that is related to the attacks.

To continue the WTC Health Program, I joined Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York in introducing the bipartisan James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act.

The bill is named for James Zadroga, a New York City Police Department officer who died in 2006 from a respiratory disease attributed to the time he spent at ground zero. While this bill is named for James, his story is not unique.

The horror our nation witnessed on 9/11 will forever be seared into our hearts and our minds, as will the ways in which we came together as a nation.

I will never forget being at Soldier Field for the Bears’ home opener on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Thousands from Illinois and more than 130 first responders gathered to remember the lives lost and the sacrifices made that day. The volunteers who rushed towards danger are too often forgotten as we remember that awful day. The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act can help show our gratitude for their fearlessness.

 

 ATAQUE A LA LIBERTAD

        ATAQUE A LA LIBERTAD

                                              

Para ver el documento completo en PDF siga el LINK incluido en los titulos amarillos

CÁRCEL de DEUDORES POBRES en USA 2015?

CARCEL DE DEUDORES EN USA 2015

Link corto para compartir  http://wp/me/p2jyCr-Qg

SPLC Lawsuit: Alabama City Operating Debtors’ Prison

September 08, 2015

The town is violating the rights of the poor with a practice outlawed almost 200 years ago.

The town of Alexander City, Alabama, has operated a modern-day debtors’ prison for at least a decade by arresting and jailing low-income people unable to pay their fines and court costs for traffic tickets and misdemeanors, according to a federal lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center today.

In a town where almost 30 percent of the population lives below the poverty line, hundreds of impoverished people have been jailed or otherwise affected within just the past two years, according to the class action lawsuit that describes multiple violations of the U.S. Constitution and Alabama law. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop this abuse.

“It is time to stop hauling people off to jail simply because they are poor,” said Sam Brooke, SPLC deputy legal director. “Debtors’ prisons were outlawed almost 200 years ago for good reasons, but the practice has been alive and well in Alexander City for at least a decade. The city needs to realize that people’s constitutional rights aren’t determined by the size of their bank account.”

When a person appears in municipal court, the judge does not determine their ability to pay. There is generally no discussion about the right to a lawyer and they are not appointed in cases involving fines and costs – depriving defendants of their right to counsel.

People who cannot pay their fines in full are arrested by police without a warrant or probable cause.     This happens even for people who bring a partial payment, but need time to come up with the rest. The municipal court for this town of about 15,000 people is in the same building as the jail and police station.

Rather than offer community service to the indigent or allow individuals to set up a payment plan, people are held at the city jail until someone pays the fine or until they “sit out” their time at a rate of $20 per day toward their debt – or $40 per day if appointed as a jail trustee to do jobs such as laundry, cleaning and washing police cars.

By jailing people for their inability to pay, the city violates their 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection under the law. The warrantless arrests violate Alabama law and the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The arrests also violate individuals’ right to counsel, protected by the Sixth Amendment.

Plaintiff Amanda Underwood has been jailed twice for fines she could not pay. She was not provided an attorney or informed about her right to an attorney. She’s facing the possibility of being jailed a third time after being ticketed for driving with a suspended license as she drove her friend’s car to pick up food for the friend’s children. She’s afraid of what will happen when she goes to court in October for this latest ticket.

Underwood’s job at a fast food restaurant isn’t enough to cover her expenses. She hasn’t even been able to earn enough money to turn the water back on in her home. She also walks two hours each way to her job because she cannot afford a car – or even a bicycle – to make the commute.

“What Alexander City is doing is not right,” she said. “People are afraid to go to court because they know that they don’t have the money to pay their fines. They know that they will be locked up away from their family and kids. This shouldn’t be happening in America.”

D’Angelo Foster, another plaintiff, lost his job after being jailed for 35 days because he could not pay his fines and court costs. He also fell behind on his child support payments during his imprisonment.

“It’s clear that Alexander City has no problem throwing away a person’s life over a small fine,” said Sara Zampierin, SPLC staff attorney. “The city is showing a complete disregard for the constitutional rights of its low-income residents.”

Javarski Hutchins knows firsthand that people are going to jail because they aren’t being made aware of their rights. Hutchins, who is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit, was arrested in July and incarcerated when he couldn’t pay the fines and fees associated with traffic tickets he received. Serving several days in jail would have been disastrous for him. He would lose his job if he wasn’t at work by 5 a.m. the next morning.

The SPLC became aware of his case during its investigation for this lawsuit and intervened on his behalf, arranging a court hearing that determined Hutchins didn’t have the means to pay his fine. He was released in time for work and ultimately given an extra 22 days to pay his fine.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, names Alexander City and its police chief, Willie Robinson, as defendants. In 2014, an SPLC lawsuit ended a similar practice in the nearby state capital of Montgomery.