Thursday, April 29, 2010

Today Congress Votes To Do More Fundamental Change To Our Country

Beck warns of a vote today that will pave the way for Puerto Rico becoming a 51st state. According to Heritage, it will give Puerto Rico 3 options to vote on:
  1. “Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States;”
  2. “Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should form a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution;” and,
  3. “Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union.”
This way instead of having a yes or no vote on statehood which would provide a clear majority, this tactic will allow for a plurality of people to perhaps vote for statehood without it being a true majority of the people. This is important because Puerto Rico has rejected statehood 4 times and without this type of tactic it would seem that they would vote again to reject statehood. There’s a provision in the bill that would allow Puerto Ricans who live in the US to vote on this as well, despite the fact that they are no longer residents of Puerto Rico, and I believe they number around 2.5 million.
So if Puerto Rico becomes a state, they must pay taxes (increased revenue for the US) and there’s a whole new voting population right there waiting to be exploited.
And all of it under our noses. This sounds like change we can believe in.


34 comments:

  1. You still believe that windbag? Beck has lost one-third of his viewers since January and Fox is in freefall.
    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201004280008

    ReplyDelete
  2. WOW! Comrade FAILk has stumbled upon another idiot as stupid as he is! LOL ... Comrade FAILk, you mean to say that as the weather gets nicer, and the days get longer, people don't watch as much TV?!?! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

    FOX is still dominating:

    100 straight months at NUMBER 1 - Can you say "Total Domination"?

    Fox News continues to completly dominate the competition by in the Cable TV Ratings Wars. Fox's philosophy of it's Fair and Balanced reporting continue to yield excellent results for them. Consider:

    In the first quarter of 2010, Fox News drew its largest total day audience averages for any quarter in the network's nearly 14 year history; its second largest in primetime.FNC was the only network to show growth in each ratings category and, for the second consecutive quarter, FNC programs were the top 13 in cable news in Total Viewers. FNC also had the top 13 programs in the demo this quarter. Every FNC program was up against Q1 of '09. Two evening news programs, "Special Report with Bret Baier" (2.46M total/541k demo) and "Fox Report with Shepard Smith" (2.11M total/526k demo), each had their best quarters ever. Those programs saw a benefit from FNC's 5pm program hosted by Glenn Beck which saw the largest year-to-year increases of all shows in the demo (up +50%). Greta Van Susteren and Bill O'Reilly were both up more than +20% in the demo compared to Q1 of '09. Fox News was the #2 basic cable network in primetime and averaged more Total Viewers in primetime and total day than CNN, MSNBC, and HLN combined.

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2010/04/can-you-say-total-domination.html

    Suck it Comrade Bruce. Go back under that rock you crawled out from under. The one where you and Keith Dumbermann are hiding with Keith's boyfriend Rachel MadCow. LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why are you against this exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The question should be why are Puerto Ricans against this? Or, Why should this be forced down Puerto Ricans throats against their collective will?

    What part of Empire Building are you against Joe?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obama ... I just cannot BELIEVE the things this guy says ...

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/29/obama-i-do-think-at-a-certain-point-youve-made-enough-money/

    WHO THE F**K is this guy to say when someone has made enough money!?! I think HE has made enough with his book sales, so WE should take all but, what, $250,000 of his yearly profits and distribute it?!?! WTF are you Hypocrats DOING?!?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joe - Here is an interesting "break-down" on Puerto Rico from Hot Air:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/28/house-to-vote-on-puerto-rico-statehood-bill-tomorrow/

    I thought it was pretty even-handed in its look at it, including the problems that it would pose for the Hypocrats.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wonder if Obummer thinks THIS guy has made enough money. I also wonder how much smaller this makes the Hypocrat's Hypocrite's carbon footprint:

    Al Gore, Tipper Gore snap up Montecito-area villa; The Italian-style home has an ocean view, fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

    Lauren Beale, Los Angeles Times
    April 28, 2010

    Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.

    The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great point Christopher. It has been voted down 3 times by the people of Puerto Rico. The last time was 1998. This is just politics as usual for the Democratic party.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Christopher you answered my questions with questions?

    but your right. Why are democrats like Mike Pence, Thaddaus McCotter, Candice Miller, Dave Camp, Ron Paul, Joe Wilson (you lie!), Don Young, and Darrell Issa doing this. Politics as usual for the Democratic party.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Bruce, thanks for posting the link to the Nelson chart. Did you and MM see that viewership peaked at the same time as the healthcare law was being voted on in the House.
    Seems like more people turned in to get straight answers from Fox on the Healthcare heist than any other station out there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joe politics as usual. Not Democrats as usual. Both parties play politics. But this does serve the Democratic party when it comes to gaining a voting bolg of about 4 million. The Dems also want to make it legal for Ex cons to be able to vote as well as all the illegals if they get amnisty. This is all about getting votes. Right now both the Democrats and Republicans are fighting for the latino vote. If the Democrats can get the latino vote like they got the black vote they will own Washington for decades. If the Republicans get the latino vote like the Democrats have the black vote then the Republicans will be pushing for amnisty and Puerto Rico as a state. But Puerto Ricans don't want this as they are happy with having all our protection without paying the taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No Joe, I corrected your question.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Also Bruce..... Tuesday

    P2+ Total Day
    FNC – 1,143,000 viewers
    CNN – 404,000 viewers
    MSNBC – 404,000 viewers
    CNBC – 322,000 viewers
    HLN – 303,000 viewers

    P2+ Prime Time
    FNC – 2,011,000 viewers
    CNN – 652,000 viewers
    MSNBC –844,000 viewers
    CNBC – 274,000 viewers
    HLN –605,000 viewers

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow, you can't win with Joe. Go along with the party line (according to him, I'm not buying that those Reps are for this) and you are an ideologue. Have an opinion of your own, different from others and you're, what Joe, crazy? Joe, what is YOUR position on this, you are always about picking apart other opinions but you rarely offer your own. Step up to the plate Joe and lay down a single or something. But at least get off the bench. I'm still waiting to hear your suggestions for stopping the influx of illegal immigrants, or what AZ can do to battle it when the Federal Government doesn't do its job.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Chris, you said,"This is just politics as usual for the Democratic party."

    i posted that the democrats like Candice miller were for this. Now you change your story.

    John, i don't mind you stepping outside of partisanship at all. the problem is Chris, Christopher and others are blaming the dems. I pointed out that plenty of republicans are for this bill. 61 in fact. 61 you say? yes, the bill has 61 Republican co-sponsors, including all of the previously mentioned. I got it off of Thomas.loc. So they must buy into this bill they cosponsored it.

    Christopher, strange you refer to empire building. Its already a territory. Seems like the empire was already built.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So i started looking at the issue of Puerto rico and the conspiracy theories going on here about it. I found some interesting stuff. The most interesting was the 2007 Presidents Task force on Puerto Rico.

    First the fact exists that its treated as a state by federal government.

    President George H.W. Bush issued a
    Memorandum on November 30, 1992,
    to heads of Executive Departments and
    Agencies establishing the current administrative relationship between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of
    Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all
    Federal departments, agencies, and officials
    to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if
    it were a State insofar as doing so would
    not disrupt Federal programs or operations.
    President Bush’s memorandum remains in
    effect until Federal legislation is enacted to
    alter the status of Puerto Rico in accordance
    with the freely expressed wishes of the
    people of Puerto Rico.

    that it has voted in plurality before:
    In 1993, a plurality of 48.6%
    voted for the commonwealth status, while
    46.3% favored statehood and 4.4% in

    And that the last election the majority voted for "none of the above" instead of any of the other choices.

    That the Task force appointed by President Bush recommended another vote in its 2005 "Some of the proposed bills would sanction a plebiscite similar to the one recommended in the2005 Task Force Report"

    And that the task force agreed that a two stage plebiscite would be the way to go:

    "The democratic will of the Puerto Rican
    people is paramount for determining the
    future status of the territory. To this end,
    the 2005 Task Force Report recommended
    a two-stage plebiscite to determine whether
    the Puerto Rican people wish to retain the
    status quo, and if not, which of the two
    available options they prefer. The Task
    Force concluded that such a process would
    be the best way to ascertain the popular
    will in a way that provides clear guidance
    for future action by Congress."

    "The Task Force
    continues to believe that the two-stage
    plebiscite would provide clearer guidance
    for Congress than other procedures in
    which it is possible that none of the available options would win a majority of votes."

    And finally the George W Bush appointed Task Force issues its recommendations...

    The following are the recommendations
    of the Task Force:
    1. The Task Force reiterates its prior
    recommendation that Congress provide for
    a Federally sanctioned plebiscite as soon as
    practicable in which the people of Puerto
    Rico will be asked to state whether they
    wish to maintain the current territorial
    status or to pursue a constitutionally viable
    path toward a permanent non-territorial
    status. Congress should provide for this
    plebiscite to occur on a date certain.

    2. The Task Force reiterates its prior
    recommendation that if the people of
    Puerto Rico elect to pursue a permanent
    non-territorial status, Congress should
    provide for an additional plebiscite to
    allow the people of Puerto Rico to choose
    between one of the permanent non-territorial
    options permitted by the Constitution:
    statehood or independence. Once the people of Puerto Rico have selected one
    of the two options, we would encourage
    Congress to begin a process of transition
    consistent with that option.

    3. If the people elect to maintain Puerto
    Rico’s current status, the Task Force recommends, consistent with the 1992
    memorandum of President George H.W.
    Bush, that a plebiscite occur periodically
    as long as that status continues, to keep
    Congress informed of the people’s wishes.

    http://www.primerahora.com/XStatic/primerahora/docs/espanol/whitehousestatusreport.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  17. So hows this all Obama and the Dems fault?

    Can we set aside partisanship and the Glen Beck conspiracy syndrome and look at reality? It has been determined by more than one president and multiple task forces that these votes take place periodically.

    And given that the writer of the bill is from Puerto rico and that it has bipartisan support this isn't some sort of expansionism or empire building as Christopher put it, but responsible governing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Multiple Choice Elections! Welcome To Politics In The USSA! Puerto Rico Stand Back Grab Your Wallet And Run To The Forest.

    Responsible Governing One Would Think Would Be a Up or Down Vote On State Hood No Matter What Group Of Politcans Think in This Country. You Know If Their Voting On Entering OUR Union The Vote Should Be Like ANY State Vote Held Here. UP or DOWN!

    ReplyDelete
  19. they are not voting on whether or not they should enter our union Al. they are voting on which one of three possibilities they prefer:

    stay a commonwealth
    become a state
    Become independent

    Its the way they have voted on this for almost 50 years. Its not some conspiracy by current politicians to get them Hispanics.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Joe If They Vote On Becoming a State And That Passes What Union Are They Joining! Maybe My Ole Brain Aint Reading It Correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Al, you tell me i don't debate the issue and then when i do present solid information on why the issue is not what is being made up to be, you don't seem to read it. lol

    ReplyDelete
  22. W ell Joe all the Republicans are waking up to what the Democrats are trying to do with this bill. They are changing their stories as well. And Joe it is politics as usual for the Democratic party. I did mean that. See Joe the Democrats are throwing out the race bait so they can call Republicans racist. It's their MO. And that is how they plan on fighting this Nov. And the Republicans that gave their first responce were just trying to not get cought in the Democrats race baiting trap. Thats politics as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Joe did you know that latinos were up in the air as to what party they sided with? The Democrats and Republicans have been working to win that group over like the Democrats won the black vote. That is why we haven't made our borders safe under any president. Who wants to piss that group off? This is good for the government and not the Puerto Ricans. And that is why the Peurto Ricans voted it down 3X's. But this is a good debate. Thanks keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Joe this is a four step procces. It's the progressive way. And the way this admin. works under the cover of darkness anything is posible. Just look at the stimulus bill that didn't work and the obamacare that sucks to high Heaven. Hell the Democrats took over the student loan business in a health care bill.They created a monopoly with a health care bill. No one seen that coming. Oh, the "neo cons" did.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joe take a look at how Tennese became a state. That is how they are doing this to Puerto Rico. Why would the Puerto Ricans want to pay Federal taxes and be under the thumb of the fed? They are more free then us.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hey Joe Did Not Say You Were Wrong Just Said I Had A Problem Reading It. Still Seems They Have Three Options Which To Me Does Split Vote and Could Make Minority Majority.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Chris, actually they are less free than us. Certain aspects of the Constitution do not apply to them and they already pay more in income taxes towards the Puerto Rican government than they would in Federal taxes.

    I can agree that the is bill would change the political spectrum and the upcoming elections as the number of reps would stay the same and reaportionment would have to occur. none the less the fact remains that a serious group of people took a look at the issue in both 2005 and 2007 and issued a recommendation for these elections to take place. and consider that Bush 41 memorandum established the idea that continual plebiscites should occur to better serve the people of the commonwealth.

    As for the last referendum, do to langauge issue with the territorial aspect the citizens did not vote against statedhood, independence or even for continuing the commomnwealth they voted for none of the above. The 98 elections shouldn't be a means to deny a current one as nothing was decided.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Joe said "they already pay more in income taxes towards the Puerto Rican government than they would in Federal taxes."

    That is absolutely true Joe. Because their median income is so low they would not pay any Federal taxes for the most part, and would instead create a drain on entitlements and services. God forbid anyone pays for what they use, eh? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  29. Joe they have to pay Puerto Rico "state" tax and the Federal tax like all states have.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Chris, Puerto ricans are not subject to US income tax while living in Puerto Rico. The pay a governship tax or what ever they call it. they are subject to payroll taxes as we are but only receive social security not the SSI supplement.

    its also been suggested that medicaid and medicare pay less into Puerto Rico despite the citizens of the unincorporated territory paying the full tax amount, but i couldn't find adequate documentation.


    John, you could suggest that, but that contradicts Chris's theory that this is being done as a revenue increase. I wouldn't disagree that the commonwealths income is low, but it matches the standard of living to some extent.

    ReplyDelete
  31. john, while looking up the insular cases and their application to Puerto Rican citizens i found an interesting link.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

    has all the basic run of the mill stuff until i found this...

    The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

    In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

    it included a link to this paper...
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621#

    Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship

    Abstract:
    Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in the United States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that "unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural born Citizen" and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the Constitution.

    This essay concludes by exploring how changes in constitutional law implied by the Tribe-Olson Opinion, such as limiting the Insular Cases and expanding judicial review of immigration and nationality laws passed by Congress, could make Senator McCain a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen.


    I am assuming that he is in fact a citizen and that the federal election committee did its job unlike the birthers.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Not sure why the birther thing was directed at me Joe. As far as I know, McCain's parents are citizens of the US, so their child would be considered a natural born citizen? I never really got into the Obama birther thing; I am guessing that people's issues with Obama is that his mother renounced her citizenship or something? I don't really know. Again, it's interesting in theory I guess but as far as I am aware, any child born to citizens of the US are automatically citizens, isn't that right?

    ReplyDelete
  33. John i addressed it to you because i found it interesting and thought you would too. No hidden agendas. I know you have a much more widely read group of sources than many of the usaul suspects here and thought you would be interested in it just for the hypothetical discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thanks Joe. Sorry I was a little sensitive.

    ReplyDelete

Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.