Thursday, May 28, 2015

No 961 "En mi opinion" Mayo 28, 2015

No 961   “En mi opinión”  Mayo 28, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” LAZARO R GONZALEZ MIñO EDITOR
BAJAR LA CABEZA ANTE EL DICTADOR NO LO VA A HACER JUSTO. PERO LO HARA MAS CRUEL Y SOBERVIO.
Lázaro R González Miño.

AMENPER: El Peligro Claro y Presente
Marco Rubio advirtió de un peligro claro y presente a los cristianos
"Si piensas bien en esto, estamos en el borde de la discusión en que cualquier defensa a una creencia cristiana es considerada como un lenguaje de odio", dijo Rubio en la entrevista con la Christian Broadcasting Network. "Porque hoy hemos llegado al punto en nuestra sociedad donde si usted no apoya el matrimonio homosexual lo etiquetan homofóbico y un odiador."
El siguiente paso que puede venir, sostuvo Rubio, sería después contra los escritos del cristianismo.
"Después de que se hacen estas acusaciones  a los individuos, el siguiente paso es argumentar que las enseñanzas del cristianismo corrientes, la Biblia o el Catecismo de la iglesia católica, son un discurso de odio y hay un peligro real y presente en esto" dijo.
Sobre el matrimonio del mismo sexo, Rubio ha intentado distinguir entre su tolerancia personal  para las parejas homosexuales y sus opiniones acerca de las leyes y prácticas del matrimonio tradicional.
Por ejemplo, en una reciente entrevista con NPR Steve Inskeep, Rubio dijo que el matrimonio del mismo sexo es un asunto para los Estados, no el gobierno federal, para decidir. "Si una mayoría de la gente en cualquier estado en la petición de este país su legislatura para cambiar la definición de matrimonio para incluir el matrimonio de dos personas del mismo sexo, que será la ley de la tierra," dijo. "Y eso es lo que es.
Esto no me parece un lenguaje de odio y agresión, pero tolerancia y miedo.
Pero como es claro y usual, la izquierda y la militancia homosexual lo tergiversan cómo una renovación a la intolerancia cristiana del siglo XVlll cuando en nombre de la cristiandad las instituciones de entonces cometieron horrores como la inquisición católica Romana en España, la protestante de Calviño en Holanda, y más tarde los Bautistas del Sur con el KKKK. 
El Cristianismo es una doctrina de amor, perdón y tolerancia, si en nombre del cristianismo se predica el odio, eso no es cristianismo es simplemente una acción de una institución humana que no tiene nada que ver con Cristo. 
Lo que habla Marco Rubio no es odio y esto es evidente en su trayectoria y sus palabras, lo que habla es todo lo contrario, no ataca, pero se siente atacado, y no habla de destruir al enemigo simplemente se queja ante el enemigo de que están atacando a su manera de pensar.  ¿Cómo pueden tergiversar esto?  Pero lo hacen, porque son maestros de la intriga y la mentira.  Por eso como dice Marco, hay un peligro claro y presente, tenemos maneras pacíficas para enfrentar ese peligro, todavía vivimos en un país civilizado y democrático.  No tenemos que usar las hogueras como los que mal utilizaban el nombre de cristianos, pero podemos usar nuestra libertad de expresión como hizo Marco, y nosotros podemos usar el poder del voto en las elecciones. 

Como un presidente se convierte en Dictador

Armando Lopez-Calleja

From: aelcv32@hotmail.com
To: aelcv@netzero.com
Subject: FW: ***Como un presidente se convierte en Dictador
Los muchos de los anteriores Presidentes y el actual  Presidente de los EEUU, que han impuestos leyes mediante las famosas "Ordenes Ejecutivas" y/o "Decretos", pienso que lo han hecho por desconciento de las Facultades que establece La Constitucion a la Rama Ejecutiva, en sus 4 Secciones. Quiero pensar que sin estar concientes que violaban la Constitucion, lo cual denota una gran irresponsabilidad de su parte y de la Rama Judicial que lo ha pemitido tradicionalmente, pienso que es justo y se nos aclare al pueblo Americano y a los Padres Fundadoes de la Consticuion.

 Con todo respeto, pienso que  los 100 Seandores y los mas de 350 Representanes, tampoco  se han leido, ni el Articulo 2 "La Rama Legislativa" con sus 10 Secciones, donde se establece claramente en la Seccion {7} Acapite 2,que ellos, los mas de 450 Congresistas, son los unicos que promulgan los Proyectos de  leyes y las aprueban,  sabiendo que el Proyecto se le debe presentar al Presidente, ésta las revisa, la aprueba o la rechaza, y vuelve al Congreso, si las 2/3 parte del Congreso que sera nominal,  la aprueba, ésta queda establecida como Ley. 

Como dice el Viejo Refran; EL PERFUME BUENO, VIENE EN POMOS PEQUEñOS, Nuestra constitucion ratifica ese mensaje, ya que la Constitucion de los Estados Unidos esta contenida en un pequeño librito de 6" por 3" y en total tiene 96 paginas, aunque  lo escencial,o sea las facultades otorgadas a cada una de las 3 Ramas del Poder que les otorga la Constitucion, está contenido entre la Pagina 27 y la 42, aunque debemos considerar importante las 37 Enmiendas a la Constitucion, contenidas entre las paginas 43 y la 56, aclarando que el costo de este importante documento es de unos $5.00  dolares, o sea que esta al alcance económico de todos,, ademas esta en todas las Bibliotecas de los EEUU.

Pues anaicemos el método que utilizaron  alguno de los actuales "PRESIDENTES",  de nuestros Paises de América, para apoderarse del Poder ilegitimamante

1ro.--Al no poder asaltar y tomar el poder de algunos paises con sistema democrtico, creando guerrillas, para derrocar a sus gobiernos Constitucionales, con el resultado de haber fracasado en todos esos intentos mediante la creacion de guerrillas, ya que en todos los paises en que lo intentaron fueron derrotados,  Que hicieron..??

2do.-Conociendo que "Donde hay pobreza, prolifera la izquierada comunista", (Adjunto mi Articulo con ese titulo). Abandoaron esos proyectos guerrerisas y se dedicaron a actuar dentro de la politica democratica, de algunos de esos Paises.

3ro.-Se buscan un "cuentista" socialista con cierto renombre, que jura y perjuta que eliminará la Pobreza, en ese Pais, ofreciendo mejoras economicas y sociales   que reinará la abundancia para todos, apoyado en su campaña prometedora, pues gana las elecciones presidenciales,
 Les adjunto mi articulo " del 25 de Mayo del 2013='Resultado de la Administracion de algunos gobiernos",en el no esta incluido Haití que tiene un indice de pobreza del 80% de una poblacion de 10.3  Millones de habitantes

4to.-Llegado el dia de las Elecciones Democraticas, para un Segundo período, éste  Candidato del gobierno con los mismos indices de pobreza y habiendo prometido en la campaña politica de la primera eleccion en que ganó la Presidencia, que eliminaria la Pobreza  algo que no cumplio, pues necesariamente sd vio obligado a cometer el  fraude en las elcciones y por supuesto que" ganó" de Nuevo las elecciones este tramposo, candidato de la izquierda y asi ha sucedido en las siguientes elecciones ganada fraudulentamente.
 "
5to.-Las protestas en las calles son evidentes, comienzan las persecusiones encarcelamientos, La relacion de fechorias que hacen contra las llamadas clases vivas del pais, varian de acuerdo a la mentalidad del Nuevo {Presidente} y del pais de que se trate,  podemos señalar; Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, Brasil y Cuba, aunque en este ultimo, llegaron al poder por la fuerza de la guerrilla, es la excpcion.

6to.-Al presidir y  dominar el partido que los ayudó a ganar las elecciones, estos seguidoe en cierta forma favorecidos por el presidente, son los tontos utiles que se convierten en complices, para que se mantenga en el poder y conforman patrullas de respuesta rapida, en contra de los que protestan pacificamente, exigiendo que se cumplan las libertades y promesas de su campaña, para crear las  cndiciones para sacar de la pobreza a las familias pobres, y a la clase media baja que tambien se las creyó.

De hecho comienza una oposicion a revelarse, de tal manera que el gobierno  responde, interviene parte de los medios de comunicacion, intervienen negocios que de inmediato fracasan, controlan las pocas divisas que omienzan a desaparecer, sacan a los acutales dirigenes y dueños de fabricas, de los grandes negocios, de los servicios privados a los dueños de laactividad Agricola en genral y los sustituyen  y sustituyen a sus dirigentes capacitados y los sustituyen por persona inexpertas, y todo se destruye, hay congelacion de cuentas en los bancos, comienzan a faltar alimentos y productos de primera necesidad, etc

7mo.-Se fija fecha para las proximas elecciones, se presentan los candidatos, tanto del gobierno como de la oposicion. por supuesto gana el candidato del gobieno, por un tremendo fraude electoral, ganan la mayoria de los escaños en ambas camaras del gobierno, con anterioridad, cambiaron al personal de la Junta Electoral, a los altos mandos del ejerfito y de la policia, en fin de hecho esto lo repiten cada eleccion y el president se convierte en un dictador con una fachada de legalidad.

8vo.-Comienzan no se de que manera a dominar las organizaciones de paises regionales; la OEA, CELAC, etc, incluso, a la ONU, en ninguna hay pudor ni honor y comparten con todos estos violadoes de la democracia, cuyos pueblos no los quieren, hay opresion encarcelamientos, torturas, etc. y estos "presidentes=dictadores" son incluidos en todos los forum, como en este ultimo en Panama, donde el presidente de los EEUU, le estrecha la  mano  amistosamente a la ensangrentada mano del dictador asesino de nuestra sufrida Patria=Cuba.

Ademas el presidente  de los EEUU con la nuencia del Congreso, le esta dando ayuda y financiamiento a la dictadura cubana,  a cambio de nada, en la misma forma que lo hicieron la Antigua URSS y la dictadura de Venezuela, con el resultado negativo economico y social, a pesar de  toda esa ayuda que le dieron estos dos paises durante 56 años, no hay duda, con ese sistama fracasado del socialismo comunismo y con los mismo indolente  dirigeens que no fueron capaces de levantar economicamente ni socialmente  al pais, a pesar de esa incondiconal ayuda... LO VAN A HACER AHORA. MENTIRA.

9no.-Esta claro que cuando un presidente viola la Constitucion de su pais, en mas de una vez, y se lo permite el Congreso, el Poder Judicial, las Fuerzas Armadas, la Policia y la Prensa, todos se conviernte en sus complices y la historia los juzgará y sancionara como se merecen....Cierto

10vo-Acaban de presenciar sintetizadamente como "UN PRESIDENTE SE CONVIERTE EN UN DICTADOR. No hay duda, con la complicidad de muchisimos colaboradores, cobardes y traidoeres a sus tradiciones democraticas y a su pueblo.
Ing. Armando Lopez-Calleja.-Miembro del CNP de Cuba en el Exilio y de la UCP

Jesus Marzo Fernandez: LA EXTRAÑA Y RÁPIDA ENFERMEDAD Y MUERTE DE JUAN REYNALDO SÁNCHEZ

Una breve nota de Aldo Rosado-Tuero
Juan Reynaldo Sánchez, el ex coronel del Ejército castrista que fuera jefe de la escolta del tirano Fidel Castro, que después de dejar Cuba se atrevió a desafiar a la mafia castrista al escribir un libro en el que relataba la vida de lujos del tirano mayor, y sus manejos y contubernio con los carteles del narcotráfico, seguramente se convirtió en un objetivo de la tiranía, pues “la mafia” no puede permitir que quien “traicione” a su máximo capo, quede vivo después de cometer semejante atrevimiento.
Todo el que conozca un poco como trabajan los carteles de las mafias y los tiranos totalitarios sabe que para esos canallas hay “crímenes” que no se pueden perdonar, y que hay que castigar con toda severidad, para que otros que guardan secretos como los que reveló el castigado no se atrevan nunca a revelar.
Por eso me llama mucho la atención el rapidísimo avance de “la enfermedad” que mató a  Reynaldo. Claro que no tengo evidencia médica que avale lo que pienso, pero son bien conocidos los eventos en que se han eliminado a enemigos políticos—sobre todo de los comunistas—con enfermedades que matan en días y que no dejan huellas que pueda detectar la ciencia médica.
Además la muerte de Sánchez, guarda cierta similitud con lo ocurrido a otro enemigo sentenciado por el castrismo: Manuel Artime Buesa.
Veamos los hechos: Juan Reynaldo estaba en perfecto estado de salud, cuando después de publicado su libro, marchó a España. Al regresar de España—hará unos tres meses—comenzó a sentirse mal y a mostrar síntomas de un catarro. Cuando acudió al médico y a resultas de unos test le diagnosticaron un linfoma en el pulmón.
El Dr., según me han notificado allegados a Sánchez, le dijo que el linfoma no tenía nada que ver con  el cigarrillo ni el tabaco, pero lo realmente extraño, es que en alrededor de quince días, ese linfoma le hizo metástasis rápidamente al hígado y otros órganos.
De resultar cierto lo que me han informado, hay que abrigar serias dudas sobre lo ocurrido con Sánchez y su rápida y oportuna muerte antes de que descubriera otros secretos con nombres propias que sabía y tenía planes de divulgar..
Por todo eso, albergo la sospecha de que fue eliminado. Al fin y al cabo es un hecho confirmado que no  es el primero que es eliminado de esa forma.


Obama And His Daughter Just Received A Truly Bizarre Offer From A Kenyan Lawyer

He insists there is nothing sinister behind the offer.
According to a report, a lawyer from Kenya has a very unusual offer for the hand of President Obama’s daughter, Malia, in marriage.
Kiprono told AFP he hopes to make the offer to Obama when he makes his first presidential visit to Kenya in July. “I am currently drafting a letter to Obama asking him to please have Malia accompany him for this trip. I hope the embassy will pass the letter to him,” Kiprono said.
The attorney insisted his love is genuine and he is not after Malia for any dubious reasons. “People might say I am after the family’s money, which is not the case. My love is real,” he said. AFP reported more on Kiprono’s plans:
The young lawyer, whose age was not revealed, said he had already planned his proposal, which would be made on a hill near his rural village, and the wedding at which champagne would be shunned in favor of a traditional sour milk called ‘mursik.’
“I will teach Malia how to milk a cow, cook ugali (maize porridge) and prepare mursik like any other Kalenjin woman,” Kiprono added.
Should the president take Kiprono up on his offer? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

RELATED STORIES

Agence-France Presse reported that Felix Kiprono is willing to part with 50 cows, 70 sheep, and 30 goats in exchange for marrying the first daughter. “I got interested in her in 2008,” Kiprono said. The 16-year-old Malia was only 10 at the time.
“As a matter of fact, I haven’t dated anyone since and promise to be faithful to her. I have shared this with my family and they are willing to help me raise the bride price,” he said.

TRENDING STORIES


Ben Carson: US Made Mistake in Invading Iraq
It was a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq in 2003, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says, insisting he'd have "gotten rid of the problem of Saddam Hussein some other way."
 In an interview with The Hill last Wednesday, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon said President George W. Bush's wrong decision was worsened by the nation's ultimate lack of a "long-term strategy."
"I've said definitively that I was never in favor of going into Iraq," Carson told The Hill, reiterating a position he has publicly held since at least 2013. 
"Since we did go in, the big problem is that we didn't secure victory there, and that's a huge problem."
"I would have gotten rid of the problem of Saddam Hussein some other way," he said. "When you go into a situation with so many factions and such a complex history, unless you know what you're doing or have a long-term strategy, it just creates more problems."
Special: How Does $70k Sound?
Carson did not elaborate on how exactly he would have toppled the Iraqi leader without boots on the ground, telling The Hill only: "There are a lot of ways to get rid of people."
The 2003 Iraq invasion issue has dominated the headlines since Jeb Bush defended the decision by his brother, then-President George W. Bush, to invade the country.
The former Florida governor and likely GOP presidential candidate days later said he wouldn't have made the same decision had he known about the flawed intelligence on which it was based. 
In The Hill interview, Carson also said he supports some parts of the Patriot Act, though he says the National Security Agency's bulk phone data collection is a violation of the Fourth Amendment — weighing in on a debate that has been raging in Congress over whether to reauthorize the law.
"I think some aspects of the Patriot Act are wise, so you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but certainly in terms of the Fourth Amendment, the unwarranted mining of data from citizens is a violation," Carson told The Hill.
"I totally oppose that. Our authorities can get a warrant any time they want. If they need it in the middle of the night, they can get it, no problem."
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who has also announced a presidential bid, conducted a filibuster against reauthorization.
Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have defended the data collection as necessary to thwart terrorists.

Banks Quickly Abolishing Your Ability to Use & Store Cash

Many responsible citizens believe in paying with cash and storing their cash at home, in a bank, or in a safety deposit box. But banks & governments have suddenly become hell-bent on abolishing your use and storage of cash, by restricting the ways you can spend & deposit your U.S. dollars, and reporting countless cash transactions to the police & government. The question is, why? The frightening fact is, our government has recently instituted numerous programs to track your financial accounts anywhere in the world, but tracking cash is much harder. In addition, our government aggressively pursues numerous programs to confiscate citizen savings & wealth without due process, and it’s much easier to confiscate digital accounts. Thus, cash has become a huge target. So you better act now to move your savings & wealth out of cash and financial accounts, and into private physical assets like gold & silver, before you have nothing left to protect.

The Bankers’ War on Cash

When JPMorgan Chase recently informed customers that the bank will no longer allow cash to be stored in safety deposit boxes, it capped off a frightening trend in banker restrictions on cash usage & storage internationally:
·         Citi’s Willem Buiter recently advocated abolishing cash altogether in order to “solve the world’s central banks’ problem with negative interest rates.”
·         Chase instituted a new policy which “restricts borrowers from using cash to make payments on credit cards, mortgages, equity lines, and auto loans.”
·         The Justice Department has ordered bank employees to consider calling the police on customers who withdraw $5,000 dollars or more.
·         HSBC is now interrogating its account holders in the UK on how they earn and spend their money as well as restricting cash withdrawals for customers.
·         Banks in the U.S. are making it harder for customers to withdraw and deposit cash, with Chase imposing new capital controls that mandate identification for cash deposits and ban cash being deposited into another person’s account.
·         Chase banned international wire transfers while restricting cash activity for business customers (both deposits and withdrawals).
·         The French government announced it will restrict French citizens from making cash payments over €1,000 euros.

Why the War on Cash?

At the very least, banks imposing restrictions on the use of cash amounts to an attack on anonymity and an example of how financial institutions are positioning themselves to handle the fallout of the next economic crash – at the expense of customers. But it goes even deep than that. Consider the lengths to which our government has gone to track your money worldwide, and the extent to which they have confiscated citizen savings without due process of law.
As the U.S. spirals toward insolvency due to massive over-spending and Fed money-printing, the U.S. government is pulling out all the stops to gain access to your money – no matter where it is across the globe. First, the government started seizing citizen bank accounts with no due process. Then, the Department of Justice and local police started seizing cash from innocent citizens. Now, the IRS threatens foreign nations and financial institutions across the globe to turn over your private data and financial accounts, with the threat of financial warfare if they don’t comply. They’re even threatening our very allies, despite the fact that they have no authority whatsoever over foreign nations!
So in short, if our government is going to these lengths to track down your money and even confiscate citizen savings without due process, isn’t it much easier to track and control digital accounts than cash? Yes. So how does the government remedy this challenge? Join the banks in a war against cash.

Convert Your Savings into Gold & Silver

Yes, we’re all required by law to report our income and pay our taxes. But that doesn’t give the government & banks the authority to track every financial move we make and restrict our usage and storage of cash. These moves reek of absolute desperation on the part of the government & banks. And they have every reason to be desperate. Our national debt has reached the breaking point, and banks are once again gambling trillions on the outrageous derivatives that took down the global economy in 2008. And our entire financial system hangs in the balance.
So do you want to remain vulnerable to the whims of government & banks, or do you want to fully protect your savings & retirement? To get true protection, there’s one asset class that sits outside the system, is completely private, and cannot be tracked and controlled by the government or banks: physical gold & silver.
Physical gold & silver have been the world’s greatest wealth protectors for over 5,000 years, shielding citizens from government & banking collapse during the worst crises in history. And physical gold & silver cannot be instantly seized with the stroke of a keyboard. So invest in gold & silver now, before you have nothing left to protect.

Exposed: Donors To Clinton Foundation Got Something Shocking From Hillary’s State Dept.

"Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved..."
Hillary Clinton’s Department of State gave favorable defense contracts to countries and companies who contributed heavily to the Clinton Foundation, a new report finds.
International Business Times reported that several defense contractors, led by Boeing, gave $29 billion worth of fighter jets to Saudi Arabia in late 2011. Although this infuriated the Israelis, the State Department asserted the move was in the national interest.

RELATED STORIES

In the years before the deal was made, the Saudis gave approximately $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, while Boeing gave the organization $900,000 two months before the deal, a company press release said. IBTimes breaks down more specifics from Clinton’s time at Foggy Bottom:
Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data.
That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to…those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

TRENDING STORIES

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department also facilitated $151 billion in deals between the Pentagon and 16 nations that donated to the Clinton Foundation, a 143 percent increase in sales compared to the Bush administration.
IBTimes additionally pointed out that several American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state and paid former President Bill Clinton for speaking engagements.
Although foreign entities are banned from giving to political campaigns to buy American-made weapons, nothing prohibits them from contributing to a charitable or philanthropic organization.
The former first lady is seeking the Democratic nomination for president and is the clear front-runner in a field that includes Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who is expected to announce his bid later this week.


Belton principal faces backlash following graduation speech

BELTON, Mo. – A controversial comment made by the Belton High School principal has his future with the district in question. Dr. Fred Skretta made a comment about police killing young black men while addressing the class of 2015 at the Belton High School graduation.
His comment about police killing young black men set off a firestorm of emotion among parents, students and community members. Some said it was like getting hit in the gut when they least expected it.
Dr. Skretta’s speech was about love, compassion and making the world a better place, and then he made a controversial statement.
“I wanted to be a teacher because I wanted to change the world, I wanted to make it a better place. I’m going to be honest with you, in a lot of ways I fear that we are not there yet. If we were there, we wouldn’t have conflicts between police killing young black men,” he said.
Dr. Skretta’s comment was so offensive to some parents, they got up and walked out of the graduation ceremony.
“I found it very inappropriate, I am highly offended. You don’t use the platform of a child’s graduation to push a political agenda or push your personal opinions. Your job is supposed to inspire, educate, inform and not indoctronize one way or the other,” one parent said.
FOX 4 reached out to Dr. Skretta for comment with no reply, but a tweet sent from his account shortly after the graduation ceremony reads:
TY all at #BHS graduation! I apologize if my remarks were offensive. Our law enforcement have difficult jobs & I meant no disrespect#agape
— Doc Skretta (@Principal_BHS) May 17, 2015
Belton schools responded with an apology of its own.
“Comments were made at graduation and they certainly are not reflective of the district, so we sent out an apology in a statement today that went to all patrons reflecting that,” said Dr. Steve Morgan, deputy superintendent.
The district apology goes on to read: “Comments being made at the graduation ceremony are being addressed and district administration is looking into the unfortunate situation.”
FOX 4 asked Dr. Morgan how the district is addressing the comments.
“That’s a personnel matter and unfortunately we can’t discuss that,” he said.
But not everyone was offended. Graduate Marquitta Hill lauded the comments.
“I was so happy, I applauded. I said, ‘you tell ’em, Dr. Skretta,'” she said.
Hill said it was the first time anyone at the school district addressed ongoing racial tension in America.
“That’s where we go to learn. Like they will teach me something that happened back in 1950, but they can’t tell me about what’s happening now and I think that’s ridiculous,” she said.
FOX 4 reached out to members of the law enforcement community, who declined to go on camera, but said the overwhelming sentiment was sadness and frustration. They also said they don’t make a point of going after people based on race, they make it a point to protect the community.



President Obama’s legacy is increasingly in legal jeopardy

  May 26  
FILE - This Friday, Oct. 3, 2014 file photo, shows the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
President Obama's second-term agenda, it seems, is in the hands of the courts.
Same-sex marriage. Obamacare. Climate change. And now immigration. And in many cases, there is significant doubt about whether his signature initiatives will stand legal scrutiny.
The latest blow to Obama's second-term plans came Tuesday when a federal appeals court in New Orleans denied the administration's request to move forward with implementing his expanded executive action on immigration to defer deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants.
Texas and 25 other states have sued to have it shelved. The drama is sure to ensue for months, writes the Post's David Nakamura, and throw into doubt whether the fight over all of Obama's executive actions on immigration will be settled before he leaves office in January 2017.
Here's a look at other Obama agenda items that are now in the court's hands, and where they stand.
Same-sex marriage
Obama is the first American president to support same-sex marriage -- though his public evolution apparently was slower than his personal one. Before he backed gay marriage, he called for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. And since, he has ordered federal agencies to recognize same-sex marriages and partnerships like any other married couple.
But the Supreme Court could have the final say on gay marriage's place in America when it hands down a high-profile decision in the next month on whether states that ban gay marriage violate a couple's constitutional right. The Supreme Court went Obama's way in 2013 when it allowed the federal government to recognize legally married same-sex couples.
The gay marriage debate at the Supreme Court, explained(1:39)
The nation's highest court is hearing Obergefell v. Hodges, a case that examines if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Here's what you need to know about the case that could make gay marriage legal across the nation. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post)
Obamacare
The president's signature health-care reform law has already survived one Supreme Court challenge when in 2012, a divided court (5-4) narrowly upheld the mandate for people to have insurance by determining it was a tax.
This time around, the court is mulling another major portion of the law: Whether the federal government can subsidize health insurance for low- and middle-income people who bought their insurance on the federally run Web site, HealthCare.gov, in states that didn't set up their own exchanges. Challengers say the law as written only supports subsidies for the 16 states that set up exchanges.
If the court rules in King v. Burwell that those subsidies are unconstitutional,upwards of 8 million people in 36 states could lose their subsidies. It would undo a key part to the Affordable Care Act -- and possibly unravel the whole law.
Obamacare’s new Supreme Court battle(2:07)
The Affordable Care Act is facing another challenge at the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell, which deals with subsidies for health insurance. The case could cut out a major provision of Obamacare, causing the law to unravel. Here’s what you need to know about the case. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post)
Climate Change
Obama told U.S. Coast Guard cadets last week that failing to act on climate change will "set a course for disaster." At the same time, the Supreme Court is debating whether his method of cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions is even constitutional.
The Supreme Court heard arguments  in March on whether the Environmental Protection Agency's crackdown on coal- and fire-powered plants' mercury emissions failed to consider undue costs on the power plants.
The justices are expected to share their decision in June. But it is expected to be just an early challenge to the president's executive climate change initiatives, say environmental watchers. (Sensing a theme here?)
Obama links climate change to American security(5:10)
Here are key moments from President Obama's commencement address to the Coast Guard Academy class of 2015, in which he told the graduates climate change would affect "everything that you do in your careers." (WhiteHouse.gov)
More immigration
The lawsuit against Obama's plan to shield 5 million additional undocumented immigrants from deportation isn't the only court challenge to the president's executive actions on immigration.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is considering putting to a vote a separate lawsuit against the president for expanding the program in November. This is in addition to the vote the House of Representatives took (along party lines) last summer to sue the president over his overall use of executive authority.
Neither of Congress' lawsuits has made its way to a higher court -- but with Obama's luck lately, they just might.
For a recap of some other times Obama's plans have made their way through the courts, see this February post from The Fix's Philip Bump.
Amber Phillips writes about politics for The Fix. She was previously the one-woman D.C. bureau for the Las Vegas Sun and has reported from Boston and Taiwan.

Alert: Obama’s Newest Executive Action Could Shred One Of Your Basic Rights

Republicans -- along with several Democrats -- vehemently oppose the administration's latest power grab.
Recent reports indicate federal bureaucrats are finalizing the details of a behemoth new Environmental Protection Agency mandate that would supersede property owners’ rights on any piece of land that contains any body of water – including a ditch that fills with rain water.
Heritage Foundation Agricultural Policy Research Fellow Daren Bakst explained the ramifications of the rule, which will update the Clean Water Act of 1972, in an interview with The Blaze.

RELATED STORIES

“Property owners will not be able to engage in activities they should be able to engage in,” he said. “This will be devastating to private property rights.”
Working in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA has developed guidelines declaring additional bodies of water – in addition to the lakes, rivers and streams addressed in the 1972 law – protected.

TRENDING STORIES

This move comes after two separate Supreme Court rulings prohibiting the EPA and USACE’s previous attempts to expand on the Clean Water Act.
The EPA published an article explaining its motivation in promoting the new government mandate and addressing public backlash over its interest in ditches and other insignificant water accumulations.
“We’re limiting protection to ditches that function like tributaries and can carry pollution downstream – like those constructed out of streams,” the blog post stated. “Our proposal talked about upland ditches, and we got feedback that the word ‘upland’ was confusing, so we’ll approach ditches from another angle.”
Though the Obama administration is poised to announce the final version of the rule change, opponentscontinue to voice their criticism.
House Republicans even picked up some bipartisan support in a recent vote to block the rule. Speaker John Boehner explained why many in the chamber oppose it.
“The administration’s decree to unilaterally expand federal authority is a raw and tyrannical power grab that will crush jobs,” he declared.


Los que llegaron hasta aqui merecen un receso:
Cuando un policía te para en la carretera. Por cualquier motivo se muy respetuoso. No seas como tu mujer...
“FREEDOM IS  NOT  FREE”

En mi opinión