Argentina: Diputado Omar de Marchi: "Dejen de ser soldados de la Sra.y transformense en soldados de los ciudadanos"

debieran pasarselo hasta que se les incruste en el hipotalamo a los diputados de la asamblea nacional de focas amaestradas del neocastrismo vergonzante. 

-------------------

La Gazeta Federal

What would Oscar Pistorius face if he's sent to prison?

CNN.com

(CNN) -- A stuffy, overcrowded cell. Perhaps two or three men to a single bunk. Lockdown for most of the day.

Is this what awaits South Africa's Oscar Pistorius when he's sentenced for culpable homicide in the death of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp?

Legal experts say it's impossible to predict what sentence Judge Thokozile Masipa may hand down. But many will be watching to see if the Olympian's dramatic fall from grace ends with time behind bars.

  Remembering the 'Blade Runner's' career

Before and after the killing: the Pistorius I knew

If that's indeed the case, the chances are that life would not be easy for South Africa's most famous disabled athlete.

A double amputee, he needs prosthetic limbs to get around. And rights campaigners warn that South African prisons -- which they say are notorious for overcrowding, gang violence and insanitary conditions -- are often a difficult environment even for the fittest of inmates.

Nooshin Erfani-Ghadimi, project coordinator for the Johannesburg-based Wits Justice Project, a civil society group, believes Pistorius would likely receive far better treatment than the average prisoner -- as he has throughout the judicial process, she says. That means he might get a cell to himself.

Even so, she told CNN, "I don't think anyone with a disability necessarily will be able to be provided for at the moment in a way that ensures that they would have the correct medical treatment, that they have the correct physical structures."

Some of South Africa's prisons are better than others, of course.

But whichever one might house Pistorius, there's no question that conditions would be a far cry from those in the $560,000 home in the luxury Silverwoods Estate, on the outskirts of Pretoria, where he shot Steenkamp dead last year.

Pretoria Central

South Africa's department of correctional services has policies in place for dealing with physically disabled inmates, Erfani-Ghadimi said.

What's next for Oscar Pistorius?

"Policy and practice, however, are often poles apart. Unfortunately, prisoners with disabilities face the same inhumane conditions as other able-bodied inmates."

Correctional Services Department spokesman Koos Gerber previously told CNN that South Africa's detention facilities, whether for remand prisoners or those serving prison terms, "can accommodate people with any disabilities."

There's been speculation that Pistorius could be sent to Pretoria Central Prison, although no one really knows.

It's not easy for rights researchers to get access inside, Erfani-Ghadimi said. But the prison does not have the best reputation.

The Pretoria News reported last year on a case brought by six inmates who told Pretoria High Court of having to share a single cell with others, with no ventilation, dirty mattresses and no bedding. They were locked up for 18 hours a day, the court heard, and threatened with sexual violence by gangs.

Steenkamp's mother stunned by verdict, wants to meet Pistorius

Medical care 'overstretched'

On average, Erfani-Ghadimi said, South African prisons are overcrowded, putting a strain on sanitation, ventilation and medical care.

The overcrowding means three men may share a single cell, or communal cells for 40 people are jammed with double the number they were intended to hold, with men sleeping in double or triple bunks, according to the Wits Justice Project.

One of the biggest risks associated with that is contracting tuberculosis, labeled the biggest killer in South Africa's prisons in a recent report, Erfani-Ghadimi said. The disease spreads easily in packed, steamy cells with little air.

In some prisons, overstretched nurses can never see all the people needing help on any day. Inconsistent treatment regimens mean drug-resistant TB strains develop and spread, while disruptions to antiretroviral programs also impact detainees who are HIV-positive.

"Also in terms of health management we've seen stories of people who are diabetic and have gone into insulin shock because they've been arrested and haven't been able to get to their medication," Erfani-Ghadimi said.

Speaking earlier this year, Correctional Services Minister Sibusiso Ndebele said that "overcrowding at correctional facilities is a global challenge," and that South Africa's prison population had dropped over the past decade.

As of April this year, there were about 157,400 inmates, of whom nearly 28% were on remand -- a term used for pretrial custody, according to official figures. The country's total population is about 54 million.

Who is the judge that'll be sentencing him?

Double-edged sword

There's no doubt that Pistorius' case has put South Africa's justice system under the international spotlight.

While the scrutiny may have been uncomfortable at time for South African authorities, it appears to have worked in the track star's favor until now.

When he was first detained after Steenkamp's killing, the African National Congress Women's League complained that he got special treatment, both in where he was held and in access to his family.

Some impoverished suspects who can't afford a lawyer or bail spend months or even years waiting for their cases just to come to court. But Pistorius was released on bail with relaxed conditions, and his trial began little more than a year after Steenkamp's death on February 14, 2013.

Erfani-Ghadimi describes his progress through the legal system as "an anomaly" in terms of both speed and the expert resources dedicated to it.

"Other cases normally take much longer, and both the victims and the accused face the strong probability of a miscarriage of justice," she wrote in a piece published on The Conversation website.

However, when it comes to serving time in prison, the athlete's fame -- and the extra attention that goes with it -- could be a double-edged sword when it comes to getting special privileges, she told CNN.

"A lot of people are able to subvert (the system) and pay bribes and get away with things, but he hasn't been able to," she said. "But on the other hand he has been able to get advantages that other people haven't."

'Living here is very hard'

Some of these differences may be stark.

The Wits Justice Project has highlighted the case of paraplegic inmate Ronnie Fakude, held on remand for 28 months before being freed on bail earlier this year with an electronic tag, in a pilot monitoring project.

Before his release, he described his experience to Carolyn Raphaely, a senior journalist with the project.

"I'm a 50-year-old paraplegic and have been awaiting trial for more than two years since my arrest on fraud charges in December 2011. I can't walk, I can't control my bowel or bladder and have to wear disposable baby nappies which my family buy for me. I'm paralysed from level four and don't have a wheelchair," he said, according to the project.

"If I use my [crutches] I have to pull my legs and throw them to the front. That's how I walk. Living here is very hard. We are 88 men in this cell which is meant for 32. Sometimes there are more. Twelve people sleep in two bunks pushed together, that's six on the top and six on the bottom. I have my own bed on the bottom, which is a privilege. Luckily, I don't have to share because of my medical status.

"There are eight or 10 people with TB in this cell and four or five we know are HIV-positive. A guy with multi-drug resistant TB sleeps on top of me. I feel vulnerable all the time."

Erfani-Ghadimi argues that as a severely disabled man, Fakude should never have been in detention at all. And if she had her way, the same would be true for Pistorius.

Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco (d/b/a Cubatabaco) v. General Cigar Co., Inc.

National Law Review

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (the Board) decision, holding that a Cuban cigar manufacturer’s standing to pursue cancellation of two federal registrations was not barred in light of a prior decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) precluded the Cuban company from owning the marks at issue.  Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco (d/b/a Cubatabaco) v. General Cigar Co., Inc., Case No. 13-1465 (Fed. Cir., June 4, 2014) (Rader, J.).

The plaintiff, Cubatabaco, is a Cuban entity that owns the COHIBA mark in Cuba for use in connection with cigars.  The defendant, General Cigar, owns two trademark registrations for the mark COHIBA for use in connection with cigars.

In 1997, Cubatabaco filed an application to register the COHIBA mark in the United States for cigars and related goods, based on its registration of the same mark in Cuba.  Cubatabaco relied on Section 44(e) of the Lanham Act, which allows a foreign applicant to rely on a foreign registration to register the same mark in the United States if the applicant has a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce.  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rejected Cubatabaco’s trademark application based on General Cigar’s registrations, so Cubatabaco filed a petition to cancel General Cigar’s trademark registrations for COHIBA.

Under the CACR, a Cuban entity is prohibited from a wide range of transactions in the United States.  However, the CACR contains certain exceptions for Cuban entities to engage in certain otherwise prohibited transactions pursuant to a general or a specific license.  Cubatabaco obtained a special license and sued General Cigar over its use of the COHIBA mark.

The district court cancelled the two trademark registrations owned by General Cigar but the 2d Circuit reversed the decision, stating that the court could not grant Cubatabaco injunctive relief because that remedy would entail a prohibited transfer of property under the CACR, since Cubatabaco would acquire ownership of the mark.

When the PTO cancellation proceeding resumed, the Board held that Cubatabaco lacked standing to challenge the trademark registrations of the same mark because Cubatabaco was deemed to have no property interest in the mark.  Cubatabaco appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that neither the 2d Circuit decision nor the CACR prohibits Cubatabaco from registering the mark.  The Court also held that CACR authorizes Cubatabaco to seek cancellation of registrations that block its application:  “Because the USPTO refused Cubatabaco’s registration based on likelihood of confusion with General Cigar’s Registrations, Cubatabaco has a real interest in cancelling the Registrations and a reasonable belief that the Registrations blocking its application are causing it damage. Cubatabaco therefore has a cause of action under the Lanham Act to seek cancellation of the Registrations.”

Finally, the Federal Circuit found that neither issue preclusion nor claim preclusion barred any of the grounds on which Cubatabaco sought cancellation.  Claim preclusion did not apply because the 2d Circuit did not render a final judgment on the merits of the cancellation claims.  Issue preclusion did not apply because of various reasons depending on the specific grounds, e.g., the 2d Circuit did not address a particular ground or determination of the issue was not necessary to the judgment.

Supreme Court limits president's recess appointment power

foxnews

The Supreme Court delivered a blow Thursday to President Obama, ruling that he went too far in making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. 

In a unanimous decision, the high court sided with Senate Republicans and limited the president's power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments. It was the first-ever Supreme Court test involving the long-standing practice of presidents naming appointees when the Senate is on break. 

In this case, Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break when he filled slots at the NLRB in 2012. He argued the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham that was intended to prevent him from filling the seats. 

The justices rejected that argument, though, declaring the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted during that three-day window. 

Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution. 

"Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause. Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue," Breyer wrote. 

At the same time, the court upheld the general authority of the president to make recess appointments. 

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, among those who criticized the president for unilaterally filling the NLRB slots, applauded the high court decision on Thursday. 

"The president made an unprecedented power grab by placing political allies at a powerful federal agency while the Senate was meeting regularly and without even bothering to wait for its advice and consent," he said in a statement. "A unanimous Supreme Court has rejected this brazen power-grab." 

On a separate track, House Speaker John Boehner said a day earlier he plans to proceed with a lawsuit against the president over his alleged abuse of executive power. 

Reacting to the Supreme Court decision on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration is "deeply disappointed" in the ruling. He said that while the administration disagrees with the decision, it will honor it. 

The issue of recess appointments receded in importance after the Senate's Democratic majority changed the rules to make it harder for Republicans to block confirmation of most Obama appointees. 

But the ruling's impact may be keenly felt by the White House next year if Republicans capture control of the Senate in the November election. The potential importance of the ruling lies in the Senate's ability to block the confirmation of judges and the leaders of independent agencies like the NLRB. A federal law gives the president the power to appoint acting heads of Cabinet-level departments to keep the government running. 

Still, the outcome could have been worse for the administration. The justices, by a 5-4 vote, rejected a sweeping lower court ruling against the administration that would have made it virtually impossible for any future president to make recess appointments. 

The lower court held that the only recess recognized by the Constitution is the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress. It also said that only vacancies that arise in that recess could be filled. So the high court has left open the possibility that a president, with a compliant Congress, could make recess appointments in the future.  

The case decided Thursday arose out of a dispute between the NLRB and a Pepsi-Cola distributor, Noel Canning. The NLRB had ruled against him in a labor dispute, but Canning argued that three of the five board members were improperly appointed. 

A recess appointment can last no more than two years. Recess appointees who subsequently won Senate confirmation include Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, two current NLRB members and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Richard Cordray. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is among recess appointees who left office because they could not win a Senate vote. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Quebec man who killed teen daughter with slap gets 60 days in jail

CTV News

Nouteme Sidime, 13, (left) prior to her death in October 2010. Her father Moussa Sidime (in a court sketch, right) will be charged with manslaughter, it was decided Wednesday.

A Quebec man who slapped his teenage daughter so hard that it led to her death has been sentenced to 60 days in jail.

Moussa Sidimé, of Longueuil, Que., will be able to serve his sentence on weekends over 30 weeks, which will be followed by two years of probation.

The 74-year-old pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the 2010 death of his daughter Nouténé.

Sidimé got into an argument with Nouténé about how she was conducting her chores and he slapped her on both sides of her face.

Minutes later Sidimé found the 13-year-old unconscious and called 911. She died three days later in hospital, never coming out of a coma.

Sidimé was initially charged with aggravated assault causing death. But a pathologist's report found that Nouténé died of a cerebral hemorrhage and the slaps were a factor in her death, and the charges were changed to manslaughter.

The family called the death a tragic accident.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-man-who-killed-teen-daughter-with-slap-gets-60-days-in-jail-1.1831424#ixzz32N6niFn1

Federal jury convicts 3 Cuban immigrants in Las Vegas-area theft ring

Las Vegas Review-Journal

By JEFF GERMAN

A federal jury Monday convicted three Cuban immigrants of all charges tied to a major Las Vegas-area theft ring.

The three defendants — Alexis Torres Simon, 46; Julio De Armas Diaz, 54; and Alexander Del Valle Garcia, 42 — were found guilty of stealing drugs and expensive merchandise from delivery vans and warehouses around the valley, as well as planning the robbery of a van driver.

The charges included conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery and attempted interference with commerce by robbery.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey set Aug. 18 sentencing dates for all three defendants, who are in federal custody.

The 12-member jury deliberated less than three hours since it got the case late Friday.

Defense lawyers, who said they would appeal the convictions, contended during the two-week trial that the case hinged on the word of a six-time felon motivated to set up the defendants.

But prosecutors argued that secretly recorded conversations showed that two of the defendants had their own “big mouths” to blame for their legal troubles.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Schiess and Christina Brown singled out the undercover work of the six-time felon Yordani Corona Del Toro, who helped the FBI break up the theft ring.

Del Toro, 23, also a Cuban immigrant, secretly recorded Simon and De Armas Diaz planning the robbery and kidnapping of the delivery van driver, who was hauling pharmaceutical drugs, the prosecutors told the jury.

Simon and De Armas Diaz were taken into custody April 8, 2013, as they were about to carry out the robbery scheme, according to trial testimony. Del Valle Garcia was arrested several days later.

The recorded planning session, or as Schiess called it the “big mouth evidence,” occurred the day before the robbery was to go down, when Simon and De Armas Diaz were driving Del Toro around town on a dry run.

“It was clear as can be,” Schiess told the jury in his closing argument. “Is there any doubt what they were doing?”

Defense lawyers throughout the trial attacked the credibility of Del Toro and the thoroughness of his FBI handler, agent Shay Christensen.

They argued Del Toro lied during the investigation and set up their clients to escape punishment for felony convictions in two burglary cases in state court.

Del Toro got probation in both cases, despite plea deals allowing state prosecutors to seek life in prison for him as a habitual criminal after he left the country for several months last year.

He testified that he fled to Mexico and then Cuba, leaving his newborn daughter behind, out of fear for his safety. The wife of one of the defendants sent his mother a threat, indicating he would pay for cooperating with FBI agents, Del Toro said.

Agents assigned to the FBI’s organized crime squad linked the ring to the Oct. 15, 2012, warehouse theft of $573,756 in Coach merchandise, mostly purses, in southeast Las Vegas.

Ring members also broke into unattended delivery vans to steal drugs and other goods, prosecutors said.

One theft was said to have occurred Nov. 14, 2012, from a delivery van in the parking lot of a Smith’s grocery store on North Rainbow Boulevard. Another happened March 13, 2013, in the parking lot of a Walgreen’s store on West Desert Inn Road.

This was the first criminal trial for Dorsey since she took the bench last summer. It also was Christensen’s first trial as an FBI agent, as well as the first time former federal prosecutor Kathleen Bliss appeared in trial as a defense lawyer. She represented Del Valle Garcia.

Venezuela: 64% apoya salida constitucional del gobierno de Maduro

lapatilla

Les presentamos el más reciente sondeo sobre El Clima País  de la empresa Datos correspondiente a febrero de 2014 realizado en 9 de las principales capitales de Venezuela por medio de 800 entrevistas para un nivel de confianza del 95%. El sondeo se realizó entre el 28 de febrero y el 2 de marzo.

Ante la pregunta ”Según su opinión, ¿cómo van las cosas en general en el país hoy en día?” apenas el 9,8% expresó que Muy bien o bien. El 17,4% la calificó de Mas o menos bien. El 72% tiene una opinión negativa, creen que las cosas van desde Mas o menos mal hasta Muy mal. Es decir, dos tercios cree que el país no va bien.

El desabastecimiento / la escasez y la inseguridad son los principales problemas que afectan al venezolano. A la pregunta “Por favor, ¿podría decirme cuál es el problema que MÁS le afecta a usted personalmente?” el 30,5% expresó que el desabastecimiento y la escasez mientras que el 29,1 afirmó que la Inseguridad personal y la delincuencia. El 13,4% indicó que su principal problema es el alto costo de la vida.

Sobre la gestión de Nicolás Maduro se elaboró la pregunta “Cómo calificaría la labor que el actual gobierno de Nicolás Maduro está haciendo por usted personalmente?. ¿Usted diría que es……?” el 23,6% la evaluó positivamente. El 21,3% la evaluaron neutra mientras que el 50,4% la calificó negativamente.

Ante “¿Qué tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo está usted con que…?” se evaluó la expresión “Hay que salir de este gobierno lo antes posible, de forma constitucional” el 22% se mostró en desacuerdo, el 10% neutral mientras que el 64% expresó estar de acuerdo.

Lea a continuación el trabajo completo de la empresa Datos para febrero de 2014

Datos Presentación Clima País_Feb 2014 >>

Lawless: Obamacare and the Imperial Government

breitbart

By Ben Shapiro 

www.thecuttingedgenews.com

On Monday, the Obama administration announced that it would be delaying one of the key components of Obamacare yet again. This time, the Treasury Department stated that mid-sized employers – businesses with between 50 and 99 employees – would be able to avoid paying for employee insurance without a fine until 2016. Larger companies could still avoid a fine so long as they pay for the insurance of 70 percent of their full-time workers.

None of this was in the original Affordable Care Act. But recognizing that employers were about to begin slashing employee hours to avoid having to pay for insurance, the Obama administration moved to mitigate the political impact in anticipation of the 2014 elections.

It’s no shock to see commentators like Charles Krauthammer condemning the president’s usurpation of constitutional authority; Krauthammer rightly called Obama’s actions “stuff you do in a banana republic.” It’s no surprise when the Wall Street Journal editorial board explains that terming the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare” makes sense because “the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day.”

But even Ron Fournier of National Journal has now said he is “getting sick of defending Obamacare,” and added that it is “getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act.” The fact that Obama’s quasi-dictatorial actions only put his allies in the “slinking toward impossible” camp rather than the outright opposition only speaks to the depth of Obama worship that still predominates on the intellectually dishonest left.

But it is precisely the left’s intellectual dishonesty that has allowed Obamacare to move forward. Obamacare is easily the most lawless piece of legislation ever foisted on the American people. Manipulated and processed, chopped and reassembled, Obamacare has become a devil’s playground for arbitrary government – and it hasn’t even come into full force and effect.

The lawlessness began with the passage of Obamacare itself, which relied on a combination of bribery and election theft in order to gain the necessary votes. The bill originally included the so-called Cornhusker Kickback – a basic payoff to the state of Nebraska – in order to earn the vote of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). While the Cornhusker Kickback was later repealed in committee, the damage had already been done: with Nelson on the record for the bill, he couldn’t politically backtrack. Similarly, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) originally handed over his Obamacare vote in return for avoiding cuts to Medicare Advantage in Florida, before that provision of the bill was killed in conference – the so-called Gator-Aid payoff. Then there was the Louisiana Purchase, in which Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) effectively sold her Obamacare vote in return for $4.3 billion in Medicaid funds.

Even so, the Democrats didn’t have 60 votes on Obamacare until Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) was cheated out of his seat with endless voting recounts. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) entered the Senate, putting the Democrats at 60 votes – even though the most liberal state in America, Massachusetts, had just elected a Republican to fill Teddy Kennedy’s seat largely on the basis of opposition to Obamacare. Obamacare was quickly passed without anyone reading the final bill – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) infamously said that we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) rammed through a vote on Obamacare just before Christmas 2009 to avoid blowback from the American people when Senators went home for the holidays. Both Pelosi and Reid used myriad procedural conjurings in order to pass the bill. And, of course, the Democrats lied to the public about the costs of the bill in order to avoid further public scrutiny, just as President Obama lied about being able to keep both your health insurance plan and your doctor.

The lawlessness extended to the Supreme Court, where Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued an opinion that ranks alongside Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and Roe v. Wade (1973) in the moral and legal lowlights of American jurisprudence. Justice Roberts somehow turned what was a fine for failure to purchase a health insurance plan – constitutionally impermissible – into a tax, which was constitutionally permissible. That despite the fact that Obamacare was pitched again and again as a non-tax by Democrats in order to pass the bill. Suddenly, the government mandating that you buy something simply because you’re breathing was legitimated under the lie that it constituted a tax.

Once the bill became law, the true lawlessness began. Recognizing the politically unpalatable nature of Obamacare early, even to his allies, President Obama quickly began issuing waivers to friends, particularly union cronies. In July 2013, he delayed the implementation of the Obamacare employer mandate until 2015 – quite illegally, as it turns out. In November 2013, after criticism of the administration arose due to mass cancellations of individual insurance plans, Obama unilaterally declared that insurance companies could keep selling plans that were not permitted under Obamacare. Then, in December 2013, he delayed the individual mandate for some thanks to the botched Obamacare rollout.

The growth of the imperial presidency with regard to Obamacare represents one of the ugliest blemishes on the face of our republic. In fact, it demonstrates that the checks and balances that once protected Americans’ rights have been stripped away by an executive branch hell-bent on power, a judicial branch hell-bent on passing the buck, and a legislative branch hell-bent on re-election via delegation of authority to the executive and the judicial. That spells doom for the concept of rule of law. If no one can be held to the standard of the Constitution, the Constitution is rendered meaningless. And if the Constitution is rendered meaningless, the rule of men replaces the rule of law.

The lawlessness of Obamacare continues unabated. A seven-foot-high stack of law and regulations can be twisted and turned to fit any perspective – or, if you’re President Obama, redlined post-facto in violation of the Constitution. The law itself is lawless; the implementation is lawless; the slicing and dicing is lawless. But the concept of the rule of law no longer applies in the world of big, arbitrary, all-encompassing government.

Obama Weekly Address: Whenever I Can 'Expand Opportunity' Without Congress, I Will

Read on breitbart >>

EEUU: ¿Puede Barack Obama gobernar por decreto?

HACER Latin American News 

 

By Laguna Larga 

Una de las frases que más se ha repetido en los últimos días en Washington es esta del presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama: “Yo tengo un bolígrafo y tengo un teléfono”.

Obama la pronunció en su primera reunión del año con su gabinete para ejemplificar el mensaje que está presentando la Casa Blanca para 2014: un “año de acción” en el que el presidente firmará órdenes ejecutivas cuando no pueda trabajar con el Congreso y llamará a más personas en busca de apoyo.

En su discurso del Estado de la Unión, ayer, el mandatario volvió a reiterarlo: explicó que está “deseoso” de trabajar con el Congreso, pero que actuará “donde sea y cuando sea que pueda dar un paso sin legislación para ampliar las oportunidades de más familias que viven en Estados Unidos”.

Ese enfoque es una reacción clara tanto a sus fallas internas del año pasado como a la parálisis política que afectó su agenda en temas como el control de las armas o la reforma migratoria.

El gobierno, esencialmente, quiere que su desempeño no se mida por sus relaciones con el Congreso, pero la idea de gobernar a través de órdenes ejecutivas (como llaman a los decretos en Estados Unidos) ha generado una reacción negativa en el Partido Republicano.

El representante y ex candidato vicepresidencial Paul Ryan, por ejemplo, dijo que le suena a que Obama “quiere evadir la Constitución”. Y el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, John Boehner, explicó que su partido estará vigilando para asegurar que el gobierno no exceda su autoridad.

Poder “muy limitado”

El discurso de Obama ante el pleno del Congreso se enfocó en la lucha contra la desigualdad del país porque es precisamente un área en la que ya empezó a tomar decisiones ejecutivas que no necesitan la aprobación del Capitolio.

La Casa Blanca, por ejemplo, anunció que Obama ordenaría el aumento del salario mínimo (a US$10,10) para quienes trabajen para contratistas federales. Esto, según la versión oficial, beneficiará por ejemplo a porteros, trabajadores de la construcción, cajeros o quienes lavan los platos y la ropa. Boehner respondió poco después con el argumento de que la medida ayudará a muy pocas personas.

La orden es una versión limitada de su meta de elevar el salario mínimo general, que presentó en su discurso del Estado de la Unión del año pasado, pero que languideció en el Congreso como tantas otras de sus propuestas.

A su vez, es un ejemplo que explica el alcance de lo que puede lograr el gobierno con esta estrategia de la acción ejecutiva, que ha resultado novedosa más por la intensidad con que la ha defendido recientemente que por el hecho mismo de utilizarla.

Como todos sus predecesores, Obama ha recurrido a ellas y, como todos los presidentes anteriores, lo ha hecho con el objetivo de evitar el Congreso. El presidente, además, fue profesor de derecho constitucional, así que debe conocer muy bien sus alcances. Son acciones legalmente vinculantes, aunque pueden ser anuladas por la rama judicial.

Y, como le explica a BBC Mundo Elaine Kamarck, experta en políticas públicas de la Facultad de Gobierno de la Universidad de Harvard, tienen un poder “muy limitado”.

“Cualquier cosa significativa no puede hacerse por una orden ejecutiva a menos que lo consienta el Congreso -dice-. No hay nada nuevo en las órdenes ejecutivas, pero lo que no se valora de manera suficiente es que no pueden llevarse muy lejos porque las cortes las tumbarán”.

La reforma migratoria

Una de esas áreas en las que no está previsto que el gobierno utilice una orden ejecutiva es la reforma migratoria, que fue mencionada en el discurso de ayer pero no ocupó un lugar central.

Obama reiteró que quiere que el tema se solucione este año y explicó que “si hablamos en serio sobre el crecimiento económico, es hora de responder al llamado de nuestros líderes empresariales, líderes laborales, líderes espirituales y de cumplimiento del orden público para arreglar nuestro sistema de inmigración que no funciona”.

El proyecto de reforma fue aprobado en junio del año pasado en el Senado, de mayoría demócrata, pero está estancado en la Cámara de Representantes, que controla el Partido Republicano. En 2012, el presidente utilizó su poder para suspender las deportaciones de ciertos jóvenes inmigrantes indocumentados y abrirles el camino para la solicitud de permisos de trabajo.

Un funcionario de alto rango de la Casa Blanca, que pidió que no se revelara su nombre, le explicó a BBC Mundo que el presidente ha dejado “muy claro que el camino para arreglar lo que está dañado de nuestro sistema migratorio pasa de lleno por el Congreso de Estados Unidos”.

“Este es el momento para que la Cámara determine cómo quiere actuar y la buena noticia es que hay indicios de que está buscando tomar esa decisión”, agregó el mismo funcionario.

El gobierno considera que el presidente no tiene las herramientas administrativas para solucionar, sin recurrir al Congreso, el complejo tema de 11 millones de indocumentados que se cree viven en el país. La Casa Blanca, además, ha insistido en que busca una reforma “completa”.

En ese sentido, el aumento parcial del salario mínimo y la reforma migratoria representan dos lados del debate sobre las órdenes ejecutivas.

Mientras el primero es un ejemplo de las decisiones limitadas que puede tomar el gobierno por cuenta propia, el segundo es una muestra de que Obama, por más que lo intente, no podrá lograr todos sus objetivos sin lo que decidan los legisladores en los corredores del Capitolio.

La respuesta republicana

La respuesta oficial del Partido Republicano al discurso del Estado de la Unión estuvo a cargo de la representante Cathy McMorris Rodgers, la mujer de más alto rango en la Cámara.

McMorris Rodgers explicó que “demasiadas personas están quedándose más relegadas porque, ahora, las políticas del presidente están haciendo más difícil la vida de las personas”.

En su discurso, la congresista presentó una “visión republicana más esperanzadora” que defiende el libre mercado y “confía en que las personas tomen sus propias decisiones, no un gobierno que decide por ellas”.

También dijo que “es hora de honrar nuestra historia de inmigración legal” y explicó que su partido está trabajando en una solución “paso a paso” para reformar el tema.

A diferencia de lo que dicta la tradición, según la cual el partido opositor escoge una sola voz para su respuesta al discurso presidencial, en este caso los republicanos presentaron también mensajes de los senadores Rand Paul y Mike Lee, este último en nombre del movimiento del Tea Party.

La respuesta en español estuvo a cargo de la representante Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Fuente: La Nación (Argentina)

Cuban mother in South African court for child’s citizenship

IOL.co.za

By ZELDA VENTER

Pretoria - A Cuban mother has turned to the Pretoria High Court in desperation as her 5-year-old daughter, who was born in South Africa, is at present a stateless person without any rights, as both the South African and Cuban governments refuse to grant her citizenship.

Because her parents left Cuba in 2005 – three years before she was born – and never returned to that country, Cuba regards them now as “permanent immigrants” to South Africa.

In terms of Cuban legislation, Cubans who leave the country for more than 11 months automatically lose their citizenship.

Home Affairs in South Africa also refuses to grant the child citizenship, and this has rendered the child stateless.

This, says her mother, who is only identified as KG in court papers so as to protect her child, only identified as DG, deprives her of several rights.

This will especially be prejudicial to her as she gets older, as it impacts on her right to education, to open bank accounts and to access a range of other social services and rights which are afforded to a South African citizen because she does not have an identity number and related documentation.

The mother told the court Home Affairs was ignorant of the law, as there was a clause in the act which made provision for DG and other children in her situation to be afforded South African citizenship.

In terms of this act any person born in South Africa would be a citizen of this country if the child’s birth was registered here and the child did not hold any other citizenship.

The mother asked the court to set aside the Home Affairs refusal to register DG as a South African citizen and to enter her name into the National Population Register.

The court ordered Home Affairs to hand over to the registrar of the court within five days all the documents relating to its decision not to grant DG citizenship so that the matter could be considered by the court.

Although Home Affairs noted its opposition to the application, it did not file any reasons for this.

The mother, meanwhile, said in court papers that Home Affairs officials seemed to have no clear application procedure and limited knowledge about the provisions of the law in terms of which citizenship in these circumstances could be granted.

She said this application was also brought on behalf of all the other stateless children who were unable to go to court.

The parents did register DG’s birth with Home Affairs, but the department said it could not issue them with an ID number, as they (the parents) were foreigners. The Cuban embassy also refused to register her.

The mother said they were shocked as their daughter was now stateless and they had tried everything they could to obtain South African citizenship for her.

This had come to nothing, as Home Affairs had first lost the documentation in this regard, then resubmitted it as an application for “naturalisation”.

The mother said it was at first unclear whether this application ever reached the system, as Home Affairs simply did not respond to the application.

The department said about a year later that this application had been rejected.

The mother eventually, in 2011, became a permanent resident of South Africa and she thought it would now be easier to obtain citizenship for her daughter, but this did not help.

Home Affairs said the child was no longer regarded as stateless, as she could be issued with a permit for permanent residence through her mother.

“Although the child also qualifies for permanent residence, she is first and foremost a citizen by birth,” the mother told the court.

In spite of a five-month battle for citizenship, the last response (last April) from Home Affairs on the matter was that it was receiving “attention”.

El caso Puig: Cuando un kubiche se convierte en millonario al instante [Video del arresto]

inversamente proporcional a sus excepcionales cualidades como pelotero, yasiel puig muestra un comportamiento civico propio del kubiche resultante de la formacion del "hombre nuevo" de la utopia castro-guevarista. creo que aprendio la leccion civilizadora negada al guajirito de palmira lo mismo que al asere universitario del nuevo vedado. 

-----------------

Maria Elvira Salazar

Watch video of Yasiel Puig’s 110-mph reckless driving arrest

J.P. Hoornstra

Video provided by the Florida Highway Patrol of the arrest of Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig on Dec. 28, 2013. Puig was clocked driving 110 mph in a 70-mph zone on Interstate 75 in Collier County. Arrest report here: http://www.insidesocal.com/dodgers/20...

 

O'Reilly: Is America going to pot?

Top Canada court strikes down prostitution restrictions

chicagotribune.com

www.bbc.co.uk

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's Supreme Court struck down major restrictions on prostitution on Friday, including bans on brothels and street solicitation, declaring the laws unconstitutional because they violated prostitutes' safety.

The sweeping 9-0 decision will take effect in one year, inviting Parliament to try to come up with some other way to regulate the sex trade if it chooses to do so.

Prostitution is technically legal in Canada but most related activities have been illegal, including living off the avails of someone else's prostitution. The court found these prohibitions were overly broad or grossly out of proportion to the law's goals.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said a law that banned what she called "safe havens" for prostitutes exposed them to risks from predators. She said many prostitutes had no choice but to work in the sex trade, and the law should not make their work more dangerous.

"The impugned laws deprive people engaged in a risky, but legal, activity of the means to protect themselves against those risks," she wrote. "It makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes."

One current prostitute and two former ones, including a dominatrix, had initiated the challenge to Canada's laws, arguing that sex workers would be safer if they were allowed to screen clients, or so-called johns, and operate in brothels with bodyguards if they chose.

One of the plaintiffs, retired dominatrix Terri Bedford, dressed in black leather, cracked a riding crop with a whoop in front of reporters in the Supreme Court lobby as she declared it was a "great day for Canada, for Canadian women from coast to coast."

Another former prostitute, Valerie Scott said the Supreme Court had for the first time in Canada declared those in the sex trade to be persons.

However, Janine Benedet, who argued before the court for the Women's Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution, said Parliament should make pimping and the buying of sex illegal: "There is no constitutional right to buy a woman for sex."

McLachlin dismissed the federal government's argument that it was prostitution itself, not the laws that govern it, that puts prostitutes at risk.

The safety of prostitutes became a high-profile issue in Canada following the trial and 2007 conviction of serial killer Robert Pickton, who preyed on prostitutes and other women in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside neighborhood.

"A law that prevents street prostitutes from resorting to safe havens...while a suspected serial killer prowls the streets, is a law that has lost sight of its purpose," McLachlin wrote.

Prostitution is legal in much of Europe and Latin America, and brothels are legal in numerous countries including the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. But questions have begun to be raised, partly because of human trafficking. France's lower house of parliament passed a law this month imposing stiff fines on clients.

"How prostitution is regulated is a matter of great public concern, and few countries leave it entirely unregulated," McLachlin wrote in explaining why she suspended the effect of the judgment for a year.

She said her decision "does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted," noting that various provisions were intertwined.

"Greater latitude in one measure - for example, permitting prostitutes to obtain the assistance of security personnel - might impact on the constitutionality of another measure - for example, forbidding the nuisances associated with keeping a bawdy house (brothel)."

Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay expressed concern with the decision and said the government was "exploring all possible options to ensure the criminal law continues to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution to communities, those engaged in prostitution, and vulnerable persons."

The idea of criminalizing the purchase of sex and of pimping follows what has become known as the Swedish model and then more broadly the Nordic model as Norway followed suit.

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada lawyer Don Hutchinson said the evidence was that the decriminalization of prostitution leads to increased rates of human trafficking. He said his organization had last week submitted to Parliament a report urging an adaptation of the Swedish model.

In the mean time, the prostitutes' lawyer, Alan Young, said he expected that for the next year police and prosecutors would likely go easy on enforcing the current laws in light of Friday's decision.

The name of the case is Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72.

(Reporting by Randall Palmer; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Peter Galloway and Andrew Hay)

Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake

By Ken Klukowski 

Jack Phillips is a baker who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because his Christian belief is that marriage exists only between a man and woman. Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail.

Daniel Ortega asegura la reelección indefinida

Cubanet

www.elmundo.es

Daniel Ortega logró este martes en Nicaragua la que ha sido su gran aspiración política: una Constitución a la medida, sin limitaciones molestas a su reelección indefinida. En un debate parlamentario que resultó ser un monólogo del Frente Sandinista, los diputados de ese partido político, mayoría en la Asamblea Nacional, aprobaron en primera legislatura, con 64 votos a favor, la reforma a la Constitución que garantiza la perpetuidad en el poder del exguerrillero. Fuera del Parlamento, decenas de personas protestaban contra los legisladores. “Diputados degenerados, con la Constitución el culo se han limpiado”, gritaban los opositores al régimen.

El pasado 30 de noviembre Ortega había justificado la reelección indefinida en unas declaraciones que fueron interpretadas como la orden del Presidente a sus diputados para que aprobaran la reforma. “No puede ser limitado ese derecho, coartado en cuanto a elegir a sus autoridades. Es el pueblo el que tiene que decidir”, dijo Ortega sobre la posibilidad de un tercer mandato presidencial, prohibido por la actual Constitución. De hecho, Ortega participó en las elecciones generales de 2011 violando el artículo 147 de la Carta Magna de Nicaragua, que establecía que no podía ser reelegido. Fue la Corte Suprema, a través de un controvertido fallo, la que limpió el camino de Ortega, pero la prohibición seguía vigente, como un obstáculo que el comandante debería eliminar, lo que pasó este martes.

“El pueblo rechaza las reformas. En nuestra historia se ha demostrado que las reformas constitucionales para perpetuarse en el poder han traído confrontación fratricida y conflictos armados”, dijo el diputado opositor y ex candidato presidencial, Eduardo Montealegre. “Ortega imponiendo reelección igual que Somoza. Terminará igual que Somoza”, escribió en su cuenta de Twitter la exguerrillera sandinista Dora María Téllez.

Desde que se conoció el llamado “paquetazo” de reformas a la Constitución, grupos opositores al Gobierno, intelectuales y organizaciones civiles se movilizaron en su contra. La presión fue tal que Ortega decidió ceder en algunas propuestas de la reforma, como la de darle rango constitucional a los controvertidos Gabinetes de la Familia, organizaciones de control político creadas por la esposa de Ortega, Rosario Murillo, o la que establecía ciertos controles a Internet. El mandatario decidió “maquillar” otras propuestas, como los amplios poderes entregados a los militares, que podrían ser elegidos como magistrados electorales y de la Corte Suprema. En la nueva versión de la propuesta, los militares podrán ocupar importantes cargos en la Administración pública, como la dirección de aduanas o el sistema tributario.

“Es un ajuste de forma, no de fondo. El fondo del asunto es la perpetuidad en el poder”, dijo el experto en temas constitucionales, Oscar Castillo. La reforma aprobada este martes en primera legislatura borra los candados a la reelección, el porcentaje de votos necesario para ser electo Presidente y le da al mandatario amplios poderes para aprobar leyes sin necesidad de pasar por la Asamblea Nacional, lo que los analistas consideran un golpe a la separación de poderes en Nicaragua.

La de este martes fue la primera de dos discusiones parlamentarias establecidas para reformar la Constitución. La próxima está programada para enero, pero será, a decir de los opositores del Gobierno, un mero trámite. Mientras los diputados sandinistas aprobaban, en lo general, la nueva Constitución, en las afueras de la Asamblea Nacional decenas de personas protestaban contra las reformas. “Marchamos porque es el día de los derechos humanos y el mundo está recordando a Nelson Mandela, porque esta contrarreforma va a provocar muchas violaciones a los derechos humanos de los nicaragüenses. Por eso hemos querido venir a decirlo aquí”, dijo María López Vigil, periodista y otrora opositora del régimen somocista.

Ecuador: La Quiebra del Estado Constitucional

Wenceslao Cruz

Cubans Spies Take a Forking Path

cubaconfidential

B y Chris Simmons

By Miguel Fernandez

Fernando González, a.k.a. Rubén Campa (Vicky/Oscar), has desisted from his ongoing habeas corpus appeal in order to prevent delay in his release, scheduled for February 2014. On the other hand, Ramón Labañino, a.k.a. Luis Medina (Allan), has made an additional motion that covers the two others incarcerated members of the Wasp Network: Antonio Guerrero (Lorient) and Gerardo Hernández (Giro).

The motion insisted in the denial of due process because of “the threat of government-paid journalists to the integrity of the jury.” Defense lawyer William Norris argues there is an “extremely relevant” thread not discussed by the parties yet. In the Opinion and Memorandum of Law entered on February 16, 2001, the Court found “that not even the most emphatic instruction or the most searching voir dire question can shield the jurors from banner headlines or ex parte statements and conduct by witnesses or counsel that would undoubtedly receive extensive coverage.”

By that time, judge Joan Lenard didn’t know the U.S. government was secretly paying Miami journalists for turning the jurors against the Cuban Five. Thus, this new finding would add up to the previous one for making clear that Labañino is entitled to post-conviction relief.

However, the factual key is still the payments to Miami journalist for their contributions to Radio and TV Marti. By that time, it broadcasted only to Cuba, and it’s hard to swallow that the contributors were not paid for their very contributions to Radio and TV Marti , but for articles in their respective local media against the Cuban Five on behalf of the U.S. government.

Last, but not least, it was a prima face case of espionage and the quixotic defense strategy instructed from Havana —and focused in the “lawful shoot down” with missiles of two fragile Cessna planes— negatively influenced on the juror more than all the Miami media together.

The motion is attached here: Presentan nuevo documento legal de apoyo al Habeas Corpus para los Cinco (+ Documento)

Spanish court declines to investigate Oswaldo Paya's death

Reuters

(Reuters) - An attempt by the family of a Cuban dissident to get a Spanish judicial investigation into the car crash that killed him was dismissed by judges on Monday.

Relatives of Oswaldo Paya, one of the most important leaders of Cuba's small opposition and who had Spanish nationality, believe two Cuban army officials deliberately drove him off the road on the island in the summer of 2012.

Spaniard Angel Carromero, a member of Spain's People's Party, who was driving the car, was convicted by a Cuban court last year of reckless driving. On returning to Spain to serve his sentence he said that Cuban government agents had run the car off the road.

Magistrates in Madrid said on Monday they had no jurisdiction and there was no fresh evidence. The family's request was based on declarations that contradicted an initial version of events that had been accepted by the Spanish government in order to bring Carromero back to Spain to serve time, they said.

Paya's family has the right to appeal the decision.

(Reporting by Teresa Larraz; Writing by Tracy Rucinski; Editing by Sarah Morris and Robin Pomeroy)