July 16, 2010   What you may ask, besides language and a stubborn addiction to manipulative living, is the difference between Ecuadoreans and  North Americans? Language? Skin color? Abiding anti-Semitism? Persistent rejection of all facts and history? Lack of education? Diet and fashion choices? No. These matter not nor should they. The difference is that Latin Americans despise and reject rule of law because each is so addicted to manipulating life around each that rule of law’s sensibilities are despised. The writer as below states, “The American commitment to the rule of law traces back to the Founding Fathers’ conception of a stubbornly rigid Constitution. The Founders created a republic that required majority agreement in two legislative chambers, along with the president’s agreement, to make laws. The law of the land remains further subject to both Supreme Court review and popular correction (through elections or constitutional amendment). Respect for the rule of law seems natural to most Americans, but it is largely an anomaly in the history of other nations. Nowhere is this more evident than in Latin America. South and Central America… The inconsistent adherence to the rule of law has made it difficult for democratic institutions to flourish in Latin America. Moreover, repeated flouting of the law by political and military leaders undermines respect for the law among the general public. This is evidenced in everyday life…”

Without rule of law, business contracts and governmental treaties are irrelevant. A man’s word as a promise becomes a lie. Without rule of law, no sane or legitimate company will hire new employees. When the central state runs every issue of your life, freedoms suffer to sustain the central government at all costs. When one hates rule of law, one rejects liberty in law. This author argues that North America’s success derives from the consent of he governed who chose rule of law and sustain it. Without rule of law, all nations are seen for what they are: dishonest, manipulative and not successful, more often veering like Sucumbios Province in to total lawlessness to aid and abet the militarization of the Correa regime. You can chose a government based on rule of law. You chose Correa’s 9-08 constitution which bars rule of law. You can choose to be successful or you can chose to be a loser- manipulative and dishonest in all that you do.

 www.nationalreview.com          

Israel Ortega

July 15, 2010 4:00 A.M.

Respecting the Law
The rule of law is indispensable for America and its immigration policy.

America, we have a problem. Millions upon millions of people want to move here. Permanently. Even a country as prosperous as ours cannot possibly absorb so much humanity.
As problems go, however, this is not a bad one to have. For the day that “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” no longer besiege America is the day we will have to admit that America has lost its “magic formula.”

What is this formula? What makes America a beacon of freedom and limitless opportunity that draws people from every corner of the planet?

Numerous ingredients peculiar to the American experience have enabled our nation to transform itself from a group of puny, dependent colonies into the leader of the free world. Surely, freedom and prosperity are two huge magnets compelling people to leave their loved ones and try their fortunes in America. But other developed countries can make comparable promises; freedom and prosperity alone cannot account for our unmatched allure. What does account for this allure is our firm commitment to the rule of law.

The U.S. boasts the world’s oldest living constitution. That document, and the federal, state, and local laws enacted in accordance with its strictures, set the parameters by which we live in this “land of the free.”

The rule of law is a vital concern in our nation’s struggle with its immigration problem. It is front and center today in the debate over Arizona’s new immigration-enforcement law. This law has stirred up so much emotion that it’s becoming difficult to have a civil discussion about what it actually says, much less what we should do about illegal immigration. To resolve the issue, we must have both discussions.

The American commitment to the rule of law traces back to the Founding Fathers’ conception of a stubbornly rigid Constitution. The Founders created a republic that required majority agreement in two legislative chambers, along with the president’s agreement, to make laws. The law of the land remains further subject to both Supreme Court review and popular correction (through elections or constitutional amendment).

Respect for the rule of law seems natural to most Americans, but it is largely an anomaly in the history of other nations. Nowhere is this more evident than in Latin America. South and Central America have seen scores of military dictatorships and autocracies, despite endorsing democracy and democratic institutions, since freeing themselves from the shackles of Spanish colonialism. Bolivia has had 17 constitutions in 200 years. Mexico has had three. Cuba, which has suffered under the Castro dictatorship for the past 50 years, has had five in a little over a century. Far too many of the region’s leaders have learned the fine art of manipulating electoral politics in order to install themselves as autocrats or dictators. Such a process is underway in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela today.

The inconsistent adherence to the rule of law has made it difficult for democratic institutions to flourish in Latin America. Moreover, repeated flouting of the law by political and military leaders undermines respect for the law among the general public. This is evidenced in everyday life: Consider the streets of many Latin American countries, where simple traffic laws are violated almost universally, and with near-total impunity.

It’s no surprise, then, that some immigrants from Latin America evince a residual disrespect for the rule of law in this country. It explains why so many undocumented workers remain convinced that they have done nothing wrong by entering our country illegally. Their desire to work hard and provide for their families is, for them, enough to justify their actions — the rule of law is an extraneous concept.

For America to remain a beacon to the world, casual attitudes toward the rule of law must evolve into an understanding and full-fledged appreciation of its merits. The rule of law protects our freedoms and enables us to pursue happiness. Absent a healthy respect for the rule of law, corruption, despotism, and chaos soon advance.

A healthy respect for the rule of law argues against a blanket grant of amnesty to the millions living among us who came here illegally. Some are tempted to brush off violations of immigration law, contending they’re not as bad as other crimes. But if we are to survive as a nation of laws, our officials cannot pick and choose which laws they will enforce and which violations they’ll just let slide.

To be sure, immigration serves a vital purpose for our country. Our nation and all we stand for are renewed and revitalized at every naturalization ceremony. But if we are to remain “America,” we must understand what makes this country exceptional. The rule of law is an indispensable ingredient in America’s formula for success. Immigration policy must affirm the rule of law and foster continued respect for this essential pillar of democracy.

__

Here is what happens when lawless nations like Venezuela and Ecuador stay in bed with Cuba and Iran:

- The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. - http://blog.heritage.org -

Chavez’s Reign of Legal Terror Widens

Posted By Ray Walser On July 15, 2010

 [1]
On July 12, agents of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service raided the Caracas home of Venezuela opposition figure Alejandro Peña Esclusa [2].  According Pena’s wife, Indira de Peña [3], the intelligence operatives blatantly planted evidence including explosives about the apartment and hauled her husband off to jail on treason and terror charges.

The justification for Pena’s arrest is an alleged connection to a shadowy Salvadoran with a criminal past.  The Venezuelan’s say Francisco Chavez Abarca [4] attempted to enter Venezuela on a false passport with the intent of violently disrupting the September 26 legislative elections. The Venezuelans claim Abarca is a long-time associate of anti-Castro Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles [5], who stands accused of acts of terror against the Castro regime.  After incriminating Peña and other Venezuelan opposition figures, the Venezuelan government conveniently shipped Abarca off to Havana for further interrogation by Cuban intelligence and a future date with a Cuban show trial.

In addition to being active in Venezuelan politics, Peña has been a driving force behind UNO America [6], a conservative-minded action group that sought to awaken Latin America to increasing danger to freedom, prosperity and security posed by the spread of Chavez’s aggressive brand of revolutionary socialism.

On a separate front, Chavez ramped up the confrontation with senior Catholic clergy in Venezuela.  He demanded a review of relations with the Vatican [7] following Cardinal Jorge Urosa’s [8] criticisms of gross Chavista mismanagement in the food industry [9] and warnings about Chavez’s authoritarian tendencies.  Urosa recently stated [10] Chavez “want[s] to lead the country on the path toward Marxist Socialism, which…leads to a dictatorship.”

Chavez also claims that Dutch military aircraft [11] violated Venezuelan airspace, boasting of recently acquired Russian air capabilities [12].  Chavez’s aim is to pressure [13] the Dutch government to revoke its cooperation agreements with the U.S. that allows forward basing of U.S. anti-drug flights in the Caribbean from the island of Curacao. Before an audience of adoring left-wing  philosophes [14], Chavez demanded a Caribbean free of the vestiges of colonialism with calls for independence for the Dutch Antilles, France’s Martinique, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Chavez is feeling the heat of international and domestic criticism [15] on a wide front and is reacting in predictable fashion: flailing out at the opposition, ordering arrests [16], closing media outlets [4], insulting the Catholic Church, and relying on a pyrotechnic display of nationalism to tide him through to a massive electoral victory.  At home, Chavez encourages a growing climate of “legalized” terror just as abroad he pursues a radical, pro-terror policy [17].

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org

URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/15/chavez%e2%80%99s-reign-of-legal-terror-widens/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Hugo_Chavez090219.jpg

[2] Alejandro Peña Esclusa: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5il6w4bMCJYXZRPfANIAyw2cdwWYgD9GUEP9G0

[3] Indira de Peña: http://www.reportero24.com/2010/07/13/14748/

[4] Francisco Chavez Abarca: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071103036.html?nav=emailpage

[5] Luis Posada Carriles: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6670B620100708

[6] UNO America : http://www.unoamerica.org/unoPAG/principal.php

[7] review of relations with the Vatican: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100714-712510.html

[8] Cardinal Jorge Urosa’s: http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue10299.html

[9] mismanagement in the food industry: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100628-709409.html

[10] Urosa recently stated: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100712-710964.html

[11] Dutch military aircraft: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100713-714084.html

[12] recently acquired Russian air capabilities: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100714-711949.html

[13] aim is to pressure: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/world/americas/12venez.html?_r=1

[14] adoring left-wing  philosophes: http://www.abn.info.ve/node/5006

[15] domestic criticism: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070802795.html

[16] ordering arrests: http://www.latimes.com/technology/sns-ap-lt-venezuela-twitter,0,6311483.story

[17] radical, pro-terror policy: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/State-Sponsors-of-Terrorism-Time-to-Add-Venezuela-to-the-List
__

ECrisis updates a bit on another Correa fraud in Sucumbios, his own private lawless FARC zone inside Ecuador. Correa is seen in this documentary, which itself states was paid by US tax dollars, in formal conspiring to avoid PetroEcuador and Correa’s own support for this fraudulent lawsuit which Correa supports:

JULY 15, 2010, 10:33 P.M. ET      Wall Street Journal
Filmmaker Must Turn Over Chevron-Ecuador Footage
By CHAD BRAY

NEW YORK—A documentary filmmaker must give Chevron Corp. copies of a limited number of outtakes of a movie about the legal fight over who should pay for alleged environmental damage in Ecuador's Amazon region, a U.S. appeals court has ruled.

Filmmaker Joseph Berlinger must turn over outtakes that include footage of the lawyers who are suing Chevron in Ecuador, private or court-appointed experts in the case and current or former Ecuadorian government officials, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

In May, a federal judge in Manhattan had ordered Mr. Berlinger to turn over about 600 hours of confidential and non-confidential footage from his film "Crude: The Real Price of Oil."

The appellate court ordered Mr. Berlinger to give the oil company a narrower amount of the raw footage.

"It does appear the court seemed troubled by the broader order (U.S. District Judge Lewis A.) Kaplan issued," said Maura J. Wogan, a lawyer for Mr. Berlinger.

Mr. Berlinger and lawyers representing indigenous people suing Chevron in Ecuador had argued that turning over the footage would undermine ongoing legal proceedings there and that the material is protected by journalist's privilege.

Lawyers for Chevron and two Chevron lawyers facing criminal charges in Ecuador had argued the footage should be turned over because it will shed light on a corrupt legal process in Ecuador in which the deck is stacked against the oil company.

"We are extremely gratified that the Second Circuit has responded so swiftly to Chevron's emergency need for this evidence to defend itself against a travesty of justice in Ecuador," said Randy M. Mastro, a lawyer for Chevron. "Plaintiffs' counsel were on screen for more than 70 percent of the film, so the outtakes are likely to be similarly dominated by them, and all of that footage now has to be produced."

In a statement, Mr. Berlinger said the circuit's order bars Chevron from using the footage in "their public relations campaigns, a goal that was extremely important to me."

"The courts have affirmed that documentary filmmakers are journalists deserving of First Amendment protection," Mr. Berlinger said.

Chevron filed an international arbitration in September, alleging that Ecuador's government was interfering in a long-running lawsuit brought by local indigenous groups over alleged environmental damage caused by Texaco Inc. and is violating a prior agreement releasing Texaco from environmental claims. Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001. Ecuador's government has denied any interference.

In March, another federal judge in Manhattan refused to block the arbitration, which is proceeding.

The lawsuit by the indigenous groups, known as the Lago Agrio case, is continuing in Ecuador.

The environmental damages case was originally brought in federal court in Manhattan in 1993, but the court found the case should be heard in Ecuador. The indigenous groups brought their suit in Ecuador in 2003.

A lawyer Chevron didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

Ilann M. Maazel, a lawyer for the indigenous people, said he was pleased with the decision to limit the amount of footage turned over to Chevron, but said any order like this has a risk of trampling the rights of journalists.

"This case is not about outtakes," Mr. Maazel said. "The case is about Chevron attempting to intimidate journalists from covering their destruction of the Amazon."

__

It is notable that this New Yorker, Mr. Maazel stands to make a lot of money with Correa and his chum Donziger by claiming that Chevron is killing off the Indigenous in Sucumbios. This fraud is unwelcome at best.

-Pedro Camargo for ECrisis