The Borinquen Tsunami and the Coming Apocalypse

Shortly, Canada.

But first, Puerto Rico. Fear it!

I was informed by an anonymous someone that nefarious plans were afoot. Specifically, nefarious plans to force statehood on our southern neighbor, Puerto Rico! It is south of here right?

The source for this? None other but the infallible, relentlessly patriotic, ceaselessly honest, steadfastly freedom loving, good Mr. Glenn Beck. His esteemed words.

Or, if you don't like clicking because clicking is hard:

I want to talk to you about the fundamental transformation of America. It could happen tomorrow.

But first, you have to understand progressives. What is it that progressives believe?

• Big government, power and control: It's not about Democrats or Republicans, people. It's power and control. You can't choose for yourself. You're too dumb, so progressives will choose and regulate everything for you

• Democratic elections: This is important to progressives. You'll hear it "democratically elected" to refer to leaders like Hitler, Chavez and Castro — all democratically elected

• Social justice: Collective redemption through the government: Call it socialism, Marxism, whatever — it's all about the redistribution of wealth

Now, I want to talk to you about Puerto Rico. Understand: This is not about Hispanics. It's not about freedom. It's about power and control.

Puerto Rico is a self-governing commonwealth, but is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and sovereignty. It's been a U.S. territory since after the Spanish-American War of 1898. They're not an independent country. It's similar to Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa. Some people like it, others don't; they get to enjoy many of the benefits of America — like protection — and they don't have to pay any taxes. That's a pretty sweet deal.

So it's no wonder "the people" have consistently voted against becoming America's 51st state; three times since 1967 — the latest in 1998. It's always been the same question: Do you want to be a state?

Now, let's take you to Washington, where there's important vote happening: HR 2499 — it's called "The Puerto Rico Democracy Act." Gosh darn it, who could be against that? The bill is a non-binding resolution, supposedly to support Puerto Rico's "self-determination" on if they want to be a state or not.

That's so cute. Wait, I thought they already had a right to vote? They do. So I'm left with the question: Why do they need a non-binding resolution to support their self-determination? Is there something going on that I'm not aware of that is so important that we need to take attention away from the economy or immigration?

We've asked some of the Republicans in Congress who are supporting this bill and here are some of the answers:

"This is a vote about freedom."

"This vote does not grant Puerto Rico statehood, it simply gives Puerto Ricans the right to determine if statehood is something they want for themselves."

See, I thought they already had that. Three times they voted on that. It's almost like something else is going on. But remember, they keep telling me it's "non-binding."

If I just trusted progressives. With progressives, democratic elections always comes with a trick. For instance, Hitler was democratically elected. But as the chancellor, not the fuhrer. Whether it be through parliamentary tricks or corruption, it's important to progressives to have the appearance of "the republic." Remember: They went through the democratic process for health care.

So what's the trick?

HR 2499 — if it passes — would force a yes or no vote in Puerto Rico on whether Puerto Rico should maintain the "current status" of the island. Wait, that's not a vote on statehood. That's a vote on do you want to "maintain the status quo."

Let me ask you this: Do you want to maintain the status quo of America? ACORN's Bertha Lewis would agree with me and say no, I don't want our current direction. But we would disagree on the reasons why.

See the trick?

In the past, statehood fails because some people like the status quo, some want to be a state and some want to be independent. There are too many choices, too many options. They need to unite people. Do you want to maintain the status quo unites them, not on the answer but on the question.

See, the folks that like the status quo are more likely to vote for statehood than independence.

In 1998, there were five options on the ballot: Limited self-government; free association; statehood; sovereignty and none of the above. Which one won? None of the above.

But now, the vote is going to happen in two stages. The first stage: Do you want to maintain the status quo? Then a chair is removed. The second vote leaves you with three choices: statehood; full independence or modified commonwealth.

Remember, full independence and modified commonwealth historically get less than 3 percent of the vote. So those options will be the only thing standing in the way of Puerto Rico becoming a state.

But Glenn, it's non-binding. Big deal!

True, but here's where if you don't know history, you are destined to repeat it. Let me introduce something to you called the Tennessee Plan. (This is probably going to sound like a conspiracy theory, but I have one thing the conspiracy theories never have.)

OK — so the Tennessee Plan, you've probably never heard of it unless you are from Tennessee or Alaska. Apparently, some of those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution haven't heard of it either. When Tennessee first came to the Union, it had a different name; it was first called "Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio." It was a U.S. territory, just like Puerto Rico is now.

But instead of waiting for Congress to decide if they wanted to make the territory a state, they took a different, bold route: They forced the issue themselves:

• They elected delegates for Congress

• They voted on statehood

• They drafted a state constitution

• And applied for statehood

• Then, when Congress dragged their feet, they went to the Capitol and demanded to be seated

Congress was unsure of how to proceed; this was the first territory going for statehood. They relented and Tennessee became America's 16th state. Alaska did many of the same things.

Again, the Tennessee plan in a nutshell:

• Unsuccessfully petitioning Congress for admission

• Drafting a state constitution without prior congressional intervention

• Holding state elections for state officers, U.S. senators and representatives

• In some cases, sending the entire congressional delegation to Washington to demand statehood and claim their seats

• Finally, Congress has little choice but to admit a new state through the passage of a simple act of admission

Congressmen, voting for HR 2499 are like sheep being led to slaughter. They'll say the people of Puerto Rico have a right to vote for themselves. They'll vote yes. The progressives will then present a false choice to the people. Instead of saying "do you want to be a state?"it's "Do you want the status quo?" If voters vote no, the next vote removes the status quo from the ballot, leaving statehood against two far less popular options. They'll vote yes for statehood. Then they'll elect their congressman and senators, they'll demand to be seated and a 51st star will be attached to the flag.

How could this happen? Look at the immigration debate. What are Arizona and Texas being called? Racists. Anyone opposing Puerto Rico as state 51 would be called a hatemonger. Why do you hate Puerto Ricans so much? Why do you hate freedom?

This is not about Hispanics or freedom or sovereignty. It's about power and control. If progressives convince Hispanics that everyone besides progressives are racist, you'll have their vote for 60 years. But it's more than that.

Why are Democrats and Republicans for this? Because it's not about Republicans and Democrats. The progressives in our country know that this is the moment they've been waiting for; every Marxist daydream they've ever had, now is their time to get it done. They are not going to let it pass.

That's what's happening: The fundamental transformation of America. And this is only the beginning.

I told that this sounds like a conspiracy theory. But who is orchestrating this effort in Puerto Rico? Lo and behold, the New Progressive Party; from their own party platform:

"The New Progressive Party adopts the Tennessee Plan as an additional strategy for the decolonization and the claim for the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America."

And: "This shall be done through legislation which will establish a process for the adoption and ratification of the Constitution of the State of Puerto Rico, and the election of two senators and six federal congresspersons to appear before Congress in Washington D.C. to claim their seats and the admission of Puerto Rico as the 51st State of the United States of America."

They're going to paint this as a vote for freedom, but Puerto Rico has already voted and they've already spoken. When they send the delegates to Washington, if you stand against this you'll be labeled a racist.

What a friggin' racist.

Ha ha ha, ohhh... seriously. What a paranoid schizophrenic. Ignoring the obvious irrational fear evident in the above detailed inevitable cascade of events -- first Congress and the Senate pass the bill for the plebiscite, second Puerto Ricans vote that they do not want to "continue the status quo" due to an unexplainable impulse in the majority of Puerto Ricans to resist it, third they all vote for statehood because they have been duped into accepting what they have previously consistently rejected, fourth they continue this pursuit of what they don't want by drafting a state constitution, fifth they elect representatives and senators because that's what one state did over 200 hundred years ago, and sixth, presto-changeo, Puerto Rico inexplicably becomes a state in the progressive's plan for a Greater Marxist Amerika -- ignoring all that, and his facts are not even correct. Despite Beck's use of the phrase "continue the status quo" this is no where listed in the bill or the plebescite the bill intends to create as can be seen here. Rather they would choose between:

(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX.

(2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.

Moreover, assuming they were to give in to the siren call of Puerto Rico having a "different political status" the second vote would not be between three options, two of which Puerto Ricans allegedly hate and none of which leaves things unchanged, but rather four options with the following choices:

(1) Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States. If you agree, mark here XX.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(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. If you agree, mark here XX.

(3) Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union. If you agree, mark here XX.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(4) Commonwealth: Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XXX.

So supposing they did vote in round one like suckers, they could essentially easily recant this vote by simply selecting option (4).

But let's get back to that obvious irrational fear. Not only are Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro all mentioned in a roughly four page article that has no clear connection to any of them, Hitler is actually mentioned twice. In addition to ACORN, caricatured portrayals of progressives, and socialism that is. Then there's the suggestion that all of this is being done in the back doors and dark chambers of our democratically elected Congress -- even though the bill was first submitted and publicly known about almost one year ago -- and the simultaneous suggestion that the bill is part of a gamble to "take attention away from the economy or immigration" despite it apparently being done in secret. And, lastly, a reference to the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico which, despite its names, and Beck's attempts to suggest otherwise, is in many ways not particularly progressive and certainly not new.

So why now? I, like I would gamble Glenn Beck, cannot say. I cannot explain a lot of things. Perhaps it's because Pedro Pierluisi, a known a vocal advocate of statehood for the territory, was elected to Congress for Puerto Rico in late 2008 a few months prior to his sponsoring of the bill likely has something to do with it. Perhaps it is because a very similar version of the bill was submitted in 2007 but never voted on. Or perhaps it is because this is all part of a still greater plan to reverse annex the US to Mexico. I would ask my Puerto Rican comrades in the Army medical corps, but all they want to talk about is the redistribution of wealth and class warfare.

If you haven't heard enough about Puerto Rico's grand putsch may I suggest:

The details of HR 2499 at the nonprofit for government transparency OpenCongress.org. This site is awesome.

The details of of why Beck is crazy at the moderately conservative web publication The New Ledger. Moderately less awesome.

Conventions Again: The Brief Version

I watched yet another national political party convention tonight. The Republican convention staring John McCain and Tina Fay. I hear this McCain character's something of a maverick. And a war hero to boot. Why doesn't anyone talk more about this?

Once again I decided to alternate between CNN and Fox News to compare coverage and once again I must reiterate that these comparisons are neither standardized nor scientific, but simply what I saw whenever I changed the channel which was roughly whenever I felt like it. It seemed that format wise both were as they were previously. CNN had a large contingent at the convention itself and presented the convention in essentially the same manner and style. The commentators for their part also discussed things in the same way as before. They did seem a bit snarky at times, especially in the beginning, but this seemed to give way some after McCain himself arrived. Fox News likewise was much as before the main exceptions being that Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes was noticeably quieter in the beginning and the network, for whatever reason, decided to have its own host of reporters inside the convention itself for this go around as well. They had mostly pleasant things to say. Lastly, both stations forgot to mention Obama's full name this time around. Barak Hussein Obama. How else are we going to differentiate him from the other Barak Ombamas?

Oh and instead of an endless stream of fireworks the Republicans had an endless sea of balloons. I hear the Libertarians had an extensive network of fog machines. The Green Party, for what it's worth, could only afford a few canisters of silly string.

The conventions themselves aside I was once again pleased. This year is a good year to be a voter.

I'll Vote for You, and You, and You

Tonight was a slow night on television. Which for me essentially means there was no Wipeout, American Gladiators, the Office, or noteworthy cartoons on air to watch. As a result I found myself tuning in to watch the Democratic National Convention. Curious, I switched back frequently between CNN's broadcast of the program and Fox News's broadcast. Not surprisingly there were differences. Although I cannot say this is by any means a comprehensive or even fair assessment of the two shows -- there was little rhyme or reason to when and why I changed channels and there were no standardized, scientific measurements of bias -- but the atmosphere for great parts of each presentation was clearly, significantly different. CNN gave much greater coverage of each stage of the convention where as Fox News frequently looped back to Sean Hannity who aggressively and incessantly attacked Obama as he is want to do. CNN's commentators, it appeared at least, got more caught up in the pageantry and excitement of the convention than Fox's commentators who seemed much more detached. (Likely having something to do with the fact of where each set of reporters were located: many of CNN's at the convention and many of Fox's outside it.) And where as CNN referred to Obama simply as Obama, Fox News took the time to clearly enunciate his full name, Barak Hussein Obama, at least once. Hmm. Alright. I look forward to watching the Republican National Convention next week.

I look forward to watching the Republican Convention for other reasons too, however. Better reasons. That's because for the first time in my short tenure as a registered voter I do not feel as if I am voting for the lesser of two evils. I do not feel as if I must grugingly chose between two leaders who will both likely lead us into mediocrity at best or calamity at worst. I am, for once, not tempted to vote for Nader. I am, I am surprised to say, happy with not just one candidate but both candidates. This is not to say I fully agree with both Barak Obama and John McCain. That is of course not even possible. I disagree with both of them on many things and on many things I agree with neither. They don't have all the answers like do. But I do feel that both men are honest, hard working, and intelligent individuals earnestly striving for what they believe to be the best for their country. In a country where politics is all too often politics and little more, these two men, I believe, have remarkably, truly, put their nation first. I was not intending on watching the Democratic National Convention, and certainly not on writing about it, but after watching a good share of it and observing McCain's congratulatory commercial I felt led to. Partially just to make a Nader joke, but mostly to record one of the few times I have been particularly excited to vote for the next president of the United States. Many people have often considered my views on the world negative -- I won the "Most Cynical Award" on my high school college trip -- but I have always felt myself to simply be a realist. And now, for once, I am really happy for our next chief executive. Whoever it may be.