­by the El Reportero’s news services

Calixto Chipana

La Paz, Sep 21 (Prensa Latina) The Bolivian government announced planning of a law that identifies 10 prohibiting areas of child labor where children are facing situations of exploitation now.

According to the Labour Minister Calixto Chipana recollection of chestnuts in the Amazon, mines and sugarcane harvest, among others, are some of the areas in which minors are not allowed to do because they expose themselves to physic and physiological dangers.

Chipana informed the National Council of Economic Policy (CONAPE) is working on the rules and list of forbidden jobs.

Since that law come into effect we are all forced to avoid children from being in those places, he emphasized.

At the same time the Labor Minister also state forward that they will seek for policies to allow those minors that maintain their families can do it in worthy conditions and without violating their rights.

Ecuador takes back Manta

Ecuador formally reassumed control of the Pacifi c coast Manta airbase from the U.S. on Friday 18 Sept., two months after the US fl ew its last anti-drug trafficking surveillance fl ight from the base.

The government of President Rafael Correa marked the occasion with a bit of flag waving, and a dig at the US-Colombia relationship. That will have given some comfort to the government of President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, which appears worried about the recent thawing of relations between Ecuador and the U.S./Colombia.

­Rancorous Unasur summit fails to resolve US-Colombian base issue

Defense and foreign ministers from the 12-member Union of South American Nations (Unasur) gathered in Quito this week to follow up a summit of heads of state in Argentina at the tail end of last month [WR-09-35] at which Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe was forced to defend an accord with the U.S. over the use of military bases in Colombia. Once again, Colombia was put under pressure to reveal details of the deal. It refused to do so, arguing that it was yet to be fi nalized. Instead, it called on other members – notably Venezuela and Brazil – to divulge the exact nature of their recent arms deals with extra-regional powers which, it contended, raised the specter of an arms race.

Food crisis in Guatemala lays bare ‘intolerable’ inequalities President Alvaro Colom decreed a national ‘state of calamity’ on September 8 in response to chronic food shortages which have claimed hundreds of lives. The crisis has left 54,000 families without enough to eat and a further 400,000 families facing starvation by the end of the year.

Colom initially attributed the crisis to weather conditions – drought and the El Niño phenomenon, but has since acknowledged the structural causes of the problem as rooted in Guatemala’s unequal distribution of wealth. This is the main conclusion of UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter, who recently visited the country.

­­

OPEN LETTER TO THE SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF

Dear Sheriff Michael Hennessy, As concerned citizens of the United States and a citizen of California State, County of San Francisco, we respectfully ask for your attention to this matter.

As you know, the Federal Government is planning to implement a National Swine Flu program where every American willbe required to take up to three flu vaccines this year. Please refer to the “Swine Flu Vaccine Fact Sheet” for information about the flu vaccines that will be given to Americans, including young children, pregnant mothers and all first responders. Due to the toxic nature of these flu vaccines, lack of safety studies, vaccine ingredients and where the vaccines are coming from, as citizens, we are very concerned.

As you know, the County Sheriff has taken an “Oath of Office” to uphold the Constitution of the United States. “In order for the founding fathers to perpetuate the principles of the Constitution they secured a proviso in Article VI, paragraph 3 which states very clearly, … all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution.”

The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the country!

Our founding fathers knew that someday, the government could become oppressive and usurp their power against the people. The message is loud and clear to all peace keeping officers: you have sworn a solemn oath to uphold, support and obey the United States Constitution. That oath is to protect the people who voted him/her into a position. It is an oath to allegiance to liberty, freedom and justice.

America was founded as a Constitutional Republic, a representative form of government with extremely limited powers, confined within the parameters, expressively set forth by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself. The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The Bill of Rights plays a central role in American law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation.

Sheriff Richard Mack and the Supreme Court Case 1997

In 1994, Congress and President Clinton passed the Brady Bill to promote gun control. A mandate went to all states ordering them to do their bidding and promote

gun control. Sheriff Mack of Arizona believed this to be a violation of the Constitution and sued the Federal Government. The Supreme Court ruled June 27, 1997 that “The Brady Bill was unconstitutional and that the Federal Government could not commander state our county officers for federal bidding.” In the ruling, Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, stating, “The Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.” Justice Scalia emphasized this point, “This separation of two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.

A healthy balance of power between States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

It is clear that we the people and you, our county sheriff, have the power to stop any federal mandate from entering the county/state that violates the individual rights of the people. To force vaccinate, to impose fines or to imprison people who refuse the vaccine will make law-abiding American citizens criminals! To threaten, discriminate, and force parents to vaccinate their babies, force-vaccinate pregnant mothers, fire healthcare workers who refuse to vaccinate or threaten our freedom is wrong. This is a violation of our rights. The government has even stated that people who refuse the vaccine will be quarantined. The state of Massachusetts just passed a bill on Monday July 25, 2009 that will imprison anyone who refused the vaccine and fine them $1000. per day! Our liberty and freedom are in jeopardy.

We are asking that you, as our sheriff, please support and enforce the following: This is what we want:

• The right to refuse the vaccine for ourselves and our families.
• The right to self-quarantine if necessary, and we agree to do so.
• To be treated fairly and with respect.
• The right to peacefullyassemble for church and other functions
• We will take full responsibility to care for our families.

We acknowledge that if there is a major out-break; we will cooperate with our local peace keepers.

This is what we do not want:

• We do not want to be treated as criminals for refusing the vaccines.
• We do not want to be financially fined for refusing get vaccines.
• We do not want our children or ourselves quarantined for any reason.
• We do not want our children removed form any school or building without our informed consent.

We want to peacefully express the magnitude of this situation in an effort to successfully communicate our feelings and our expectations under the United States Constitution. There are people who feel strongly enough about this to resist with violence. This is an effort to avoid that scenario.

The community and the people you are charged to protect deserve to know where you stand on this crucial issue. For that reason, we request that you please sign a Statement of Intention. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Signature Marvin Ramirez

by the University of Michigan

ANN ARBOR, Michigan.— Key to a child’s successful education is an environment in which he or she can learn safely. According to a report released today by the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, only 26 percent of parents would give their child’s high school an “A” for preventing bullying and school violence, and 38 percent of parents would give their child’s elementary or junior high an “A.”

“Children who are victims of bullying can have serious health effects, including physical injuries and emotional problems such as depression, low self-esteem, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts and actions,” says Matthew Davis, M.D., director of the poll and associate professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the U-M Medical School.

“Unfortunately, in the United States, we’ve seen some tragedies in the past few years regarding episodes of school violence that have gotten a lot of media coverage and upset many parents.”

In the U.S., an estimated 160,000 children miss school every day out of fear of attack or intimidation by other students, according to the National Education Association. Since 1992, there have been 250 violent deaths in schools, and bullying has been a factor in many school shootings.

“What this poll shows is that parents are still very concerned about bullying in their schools. About three-quarters of states nationwide have implemented bullying prevention laws that are designed to encourage, and in some cases force schools to present and deliver bullying prevention curriculum to students,” says Davis, who is also an associate professor septiembreof public policy at the U-M Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. “But based on these findings, it doesn’t appear that those curricula or programs are working effectively.”

The poll asked 1,087 parents across the U.S. in May 2009 to assign their child’s school an A through F grade in five categories: overall safety, building security, bullying and school violence prevention, keeping students safe during a school-wide emergency, and keeping parents informed in the event of a school-wide emergency.

Parents grades for other school safety concerns: Overall safety: 59 percent of parents would give their child’s primary school an “A,” while 33 percent of parents would give their child’s secondary school an “A.”

Keeping parents informed in a school-wide emergency: 64 percent of parents would give their child’s primary school an “A,” while 46 percent of parents would give their child’s secondary school an “A.”

Keeping their child safe during a school-wide emergency: 62 percent of parents would give their child’s primary school an “A,” while 36 percent of parents would give their child’s secondary school an “A.”

Building security: 49 percent of parents would give their child’s primary school an “A,” while 33 percent of parents would give their child’s secondary school an “A.”

What parents can do?

Parents who have concerns about bullying in their child’s school can get involved in a few ways. Davis suggests parents become ­active in local safe school and safe community programs where bullying and violence prevention programs already exist.

In the few states where bullying prevention programs do not exist, Davis suggests parents get involved in the legislative process by advocating for bullying programs to be put in place using other states as examples.

“But right at home, there’s a way for parents to make a difference too,” he says.

“Parents can listen to their kids who are their eyes and ears in the schools, especially about issues of bullying. It can be really hard for children to bring up the topic of bullying so parents may need to ask directly about it and make home a safe place to talk about this important problem.”

by David Evans Teesdale

Mexico celebrated its traditional Grito de Dolores on Sept. 15 at the San Francisco Civic Center, while its consul general saluted the countries of Central American who were also celebrating their independence. (photo by Marvin J. Ramírez)

It is with great trepidation today that I reveal the dirty little secret about the Democrats’ health-care ‘reform’ bill, languishing in mark-up, that neither Democrats or Republicans want you to know. This is a secret so great, that even greater lengths have been gone to in order to make sure you never know about it. That secret, is of course, that the thousand page leviathan snaking its way through Congress will never pass. It will not become law, at least during Obama’s presidency.

There was some question, prior to his inauguration, ­as to how moderate an Obama Administration would be. Obama tacked to the center in the later stages of the presidential campaign and many expected that he had learned the hard lessons of Clinton’s ill-advised lurch leftward in the early days of his own presidency and would take a more centrist approach early on. Obama cleared up any of those debates within days of his inauguration, signing radical executive orders regarding abortion and terrorist detainees, and by pushing through the massive American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The AERR (probably better spelled ERROR– Economic Retardation and Redistribution for Obama’s Re-election) has thus far been a colossal disaster.

Obama’s leftward lurches were noted by this author as early as January, and upon passage of the stimulus, I declared defi nitively that as a result of the stimulus battle:

“The Democrats stand to potentially be hammered in the 2010 mid-terms, if only Republicans in the Senate hold their ground and let the Democrats have their win now. It is costly for both sides, but Obama will have spent his political capital on a project only 37 percent of Americans support. You and I can kiss goodbye the notion of socialized medicine or other hair brained plans hatched 50 years ago by pseudo-socialists.” (Feb. 7, 2009).

Republicans largely stood their ground against the wasteful spending in the stimulus bill, and though it was not evident at the time, this helped to harden Americans against any more socialist-leaning legislation. It was to me evident then, that no plan for the nationalization of healthcare could ever pass muster.

However, I, like many others, was reticent to point this out and risk the disinterest and dis-involvement that would likely emanate from those activists who would otherwise be speaking out against this bill by calling their Congressmen and generally stirring the pudding. We’ve seen this phenomenon occur most recently during the cap and trade debate in the House, where a highly unpopular and dangerous bill somehow managed to squeak into a position dangerously close the Federal Register.

So why come out now at such a pivotal time in the legislative process and chat up how the bill is doomed? Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) recently stated that Obama’s health-care initiative is like his Waterloo. If Obama is defeated here, that may very well spell the end of Obama’s endeavors to reshape the American social and political landscape in his own very liberal image.

While the analogy is imperfect, as all analogies are, it is important to note that if Obama can be stopped on health-care—and he almost certainly will be stopped— Republicans can salvage what is left of America.

Though the stimulus plan has severely debilitated America by plunging us into nearly irreparable debt and by burdening future generations with a crushing tax, we may someday be thankful that the Obama Administration pressed for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ERROR, when they did. In doing so, the Obama White House lurched far to the left, and this bacchanalian spendthrift left America not just with a hang over, but a terrible after-taste, and has ignited opposition to further leftward power grabs. National health-care, which would destroy innovation, hinder care, raise costs, institutionalize a culture of death, deprive us of our liberties and relegate America to European style mixed-economic socialism, would be far worse.

The blows dealt by Obama’s stimulus package are severe, but not insurmountable. National health-care would radically transform America. With calls to Congressional offices running fifteen to one against the plans as they stand, Obama is on the ropes. A resounding defeat here would diminish Barack Obama’s future political capital and neuter the march toward a Fabian-styled social order. To utilize another imperfect, boxing analogy; now is not the time to relent. If this is truly destined to be a defeat for the Obama Administration, we should not be content to win by T.K.O. Just as the Duke of Wellington and allied forces saved the continent of Europe from Napoleon’s forces, we should not see Obama’s weakened state and let our guard down. Republicans and conservative Democrats should press Obama all the more fiercely. Let’s make health-care Obama’s Waterloo.

(David Teesdale, cam be reached at david.evans.teesdale@gmail.com.)