| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Details: Statehood To Be Forced On Puerto Rico |
| 2010-04-28 |
| The legislation contains many questionable provisions. First, the legislation sets up a voting process rigged for success. The legislation sets up a preliminary vote and the voters are given two options. If a majority of Puerto Ricans vote in favor of changing the status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to “a different political status,' then a second vote would be scheduled to poll voters on the following three options: 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.' Another odd provision allows non-resident Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood for the Commonwealth. The bill states that “all United States citizens born in Puerto Rico who comply, to the satisfaction of the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission, with all Commission requirements (other than the residency requirement) applicable to eligibility to vote in a general election in Puerto Rico.' Residency requirements may be waived, because Puerto Ricans living in the states would naturally favor statehood for the Commonwealth. This provision allows non-resident Puerto Ricans to undermine the will of the residents of the Commonwealth. According to the U.S. Census, there are more Puerto Ricans residing in the 50 states, than in the proposed 51st state. The estimates as part of the American Community Survey estimates that out of the 301 million people in the United States, 4.13 million are of Puerto Rican descent. The Census also estimates that the population of Puerto Rico is a mere 3.97 million. This would allow for the will of the residents of the Commonwealth to be overridden by people who have chosen to move one of the 50 states. Importantly, because of a new law in PR to combat identity theft, all birth certificates will become invalid as of July 1st. Some 40% of ID thefts in the US are related to this problem, according to the State Department. PR will then issue *new* birth certificates. So this effort at a statehood vote is designed for massive fraud on top of everything else. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #18 As per UNO, sovereign World nations like the USA are supposed to be DECOLONIZING their overseas Territories, i.e. CHANGING THIER CURR POLITICAL STATUS to either NATIONAL INTEGRATION/UNION, or else towards SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENCE. * POTUS BAMMER + His "57 US STATES" QUIP > PERSONALLY, I "WANT TO BELIEVE" THAT THE BAM-MAN WILL ONE DAY FORMALLY OFFER DURING HIS POTUS TENURE ANY AND ALL NON-STATE US TERRITORIES [Guam, CNMI, Amer Samoa, Virgin Islands, PR] A VOTE ON SELF-DETERMINATION TOWARDS FORMAL US STATEHOOD OR INDEPENDENCE FROM THE US. Lest we fergit, 9-11 + WOT = WAR FOR OWG-NWO = THE 20TH CENTURY/COLD WAR "STATUS QUO" = CURRENT ORDER + ESTABLISHMENT, ETC. IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE OR TOLERABLE, EITHER TO THE GOOD GUYS NOR TO THE BAD GUYS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-04-28 19:59 |
| #17 lex and keeny - wrongo! The GOP needs to return to conservatism and then explain why its better. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2010-04-28 18:40 |
| #16 If statehood is being pushed by BO, it favors the donks. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-04-28 17:40 |
| #15 A U.S. flag with Thought the Puerto Rico statehood party tended to be heavy towards Republican? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-04-28 16:56 |
| #14 I work with a guy who was born in Puerto Rico while his American Citizen parents were working there. He has to go through all kinds of crap to get a new birth certificate. No one in the state Department or the government in Puerto Rico seems to know what he's supposed to do. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2010-04-28 16:41 |
| #13 I know - let Hawaii vote on secession it costs too much to change everything. |
| Posted by: anonymous_2u2 2010-04-28 16:30 |
| #12 Yah, I mean, it's obvious, we should have had the amnesty-friendly John McCain at the top of the ticket in '08, instead of that fringe figure Sarah Palin... |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-04-28 13:40 |
| #11 The GOP has to stop catering to cronies and the far-right, and start getting TACTICALLY smart. I don't agree with everything lex says, but I agree here. I consider myself pretty conservative, but reality dictates a “center right” approach if the Reps want to be successful. |
| Posted by: Keeney 2010-04-28 12:25 |
| #10 Residency requirements may be waived, because Puerto Ricans living in the states would naturally favor statehood for the Commonwealth. Why would that be so? If they already live in the states what advantage would be gained by turning Puerto Rico into one as well? Most immigrants tend to glorify their left behind nation and forget the poverty and draconic laws and try to change their Western Host. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2010-04-28 11:55 |
| #9 There simply is no majority for his small-gov't New Hampshire yeoman farmer approach outside of a few anti-government hamlets. Seems to work out here in fly over country. Come visit a few farmers and ranchers. |
| Posted by: bman 2010-04-28 11:04 |
| #8 There simply is no majority for his small-gov't New Hampshire yeoman farmer approach outside of a few anti-government hamlets. Weird how the polls disagree with you. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2010-04-28 10:09 |
| #7 Time to once again |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-04-28 07:45 |
| #6 Barry and his leftest cadre kow that true 'Hope and Change' need a symbol. New US flag design to be coming soon. Colour scheme to include....traditional red, black and green. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-04-28 07:41 |
| #5 divide et impera |
| Posted by: lex 2010-04-28 02:42 |
| #4 Rasmussen reports that a majority of Arizona Hispanics support the new law. I'm guessing that the Donks are - gasp -stereotyping as usual. Without saying it. As usual. I know that a lot of the legitimate "hispanic" immigrants are proud of their status and don't like to see an end-run around what they have worked hard for. I'm betting the hispanic vote will be divided more than the Donks suspect. As for the illegals, that's another story. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-04-28 02:31 |
| #3 Rasmussen reports that a majority of Arizona Hispanics support the new law. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2010-04-28 01:25 |
| #2 Steyn's right, but he's wrong on the libertarian angle. There simply is no majority for his small-gov't New Hampshire yeoman farmer approach outside of a few anti-government hamlets. The GOP has to stop catering to cronies and the far-right, and start getting TACTICALLY smart. Don't take the Arizona legislation bait. Whatever the merits of the law, the GOP absolutely has to shed its white-boy image if it wants to take back Washington. Divide (hispanics and liberals) and conquer. Go draconian on punishing employers, secure the border, and in return, compromise by opposing the AZ law. That way electoral victory lies. Then again, you could let Barry outwit and wrongfoot you. Again. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-04-28 00:59 |
| #1 Folks, stuff like this is the reason why Mark Steyn and others are trying to warn us against getting complacent at tactical victories like Scott Brown's Senate win. The Quislingcrats are playing for keeps; they've been patiently following the Gramscian playbook for more than forty years, and now they think their final triumph is so close they can taste it. That's why they're pushing this in parallel with "comprehensive immigration reform" (and DON'T think the b****ards are giving up on ramming that one through this year) - between the PR's and the illegal Mexicans, you have to be talking about at least 15 million new Quislingcrat voters. That's what's at stake here - America either becoming a one-party socialist backwater, or falling toward a Balkanesque dismemberment...either of which would probably be just ducky with most liberals. |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2010-04-28 00:49 |