Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (79862)	4/28/2010 5:27:58 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 89467

Puerto Rico – 51st State? Congress Scrambling to Make it So BIG GOV By Kristinn Taylor and Andrea Shea King on statehood Last night (Tuesday) on his TV show, Glenn Beck dropped another bombshell — on Thursday, Congress will take up a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Why is our Congress doing this now? Secretly? Quickly? If it hadn't been for one of Beck's "Refounders" (a Congressional insider), would we even know about this? Why is this important to you and me? Well, the word is out, and my local 9-12/Tea party organization sent this out this morning. First thing to hit my mailbox, in fact… There is a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Again, they are trying to pull one over on us and on Puerto Ricans, who have consistently said they do not want to become a state. Read below for more information (from Eagle Forum). This was also discussed by Rep Tom Price on a conference call yesterday. Please consider this: * The U.S. would transform, overnight, into a bilingual nation. At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English, the language of our U.S. Constitution and founding documents. The Washington Times article, "Puerto Rican statehood," analyzes all the implications of adding a foreign language-speaking state to the Union. * It would bring immediate demands for massive federal spending. The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half that of our poorest state, and infrastructure and the environment are far below American standards. Puerto Rico has a population with a median national income of $17,741, nearly a third of that for the U.S. * Puerto Rico is already a democracy. Despite the bill's deceptive title, Puerto Rico already has an elected government and exists as a self-governed commonwealth of the U.S. * Statehood would give Puerto Rico more congressional representation than 25 of our 50 states! It would inevitably give Democrats two additional U.S. Senators and 6 to 8 additional Members of the House. H.R. 2499 is stealth legislation designed to lead to the admission of Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico as the 51st state, thereby making us a de facto bilingual nation, like Canada. The U.S. Congress should not be forcing Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood, especially since the Puerto Rican people have rejected statehood three times since 1991! No Member of Congress who describes himself as a limited government, fiscal conservative should be casting a YEA vote for H.R. 2499, as Puerto Rican statehood would cause an immediate increase in federal expenditures, particularly for taxpayer-funded welfare state services. Sponsored by Puerto Rican delegate Pedro Pierluisi (D), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) – which has reared its ugly head a number of times over the past few congresses but has yet to have any success – would require Puerto Ricans to hold a national referendum to decide if they want Puerto Rico to remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth, or become the 51st state. The referendum would be set up as two plebiscites which would effectively deceive Puerto Ricans into voting for statehood. In the first round of votes, the Puerto Rican people would be given the choice between remaining a U.S. territory and "pursuing a different political status." If the majority votes to maintain the status quo, this bill would require that Puerto Rico vote on this same issue every eight years. If the majority votes for "different status," a second round of votes would be held where Puerto Ricans would choose either statehood or independence-the status quo of "U.S. territory" would not even be an option! In other words, the two ballots would be rigged to favor the outcome of statehood, overriding the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status. * Contact your US congressmen AND * Take quick action here: capwiz.com

To: combjelly who wrote (79862)	4/28/2010 6:17:07 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 89467

The FDIC is completely corrupt. They are back-dooring deals right and left to insiders at this time. Peolosi's husband scored a huge chunk of their REO business w/o ANY previous experience. LOL!

To: combjelly who wrote (79862)	4/28/2010 9:17:17 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 89467

WEDNESDAY, APR 28, 2010 14:29 ET White House reporters afraid to criticize the White House BY GLENN GREENWALD (updated below) Politico's Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin have a long article describing the growing anger of the White House press corps towards the Obama White House. Many of the grievances are petty, though some are serious and substantive (involving lack of transparency and media manipulation), but the passage that I found most revealing is this one: Much of the criticism is off the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House. Just think about that for a minute. National political reporters are furious over various White House practices involving transparency and information control, but are unwilling to say so for attribution due to fear of "retaliation," instead insisting on hiding behind a wall of anonymity (which Politico, needless to say, happily provides). Isn't that a rather serious problem: that the White House press corps is afraid to criticize the President and the White House for fear of losing access and suffering other forms of retribution? What does that say about their "journalism"? It's the flip side of those White House reporters who need the good graces of Obama aides for their behind-the-scenes books and thus desperately do their bidding: what kind of reporter covering the White House would possibly admit that they're afraid to say anything with their names attached that might anger the President and his aides? How could you possibly be a minimally credible White House reporter if you have that fear? Doesn't that unwillingness rather obviously render their reporting worthless? The article notes that aside from punishing reporters who say things it dislikes, the White House rewards those reporters (with special "scoops" and other privileges) who subserviently promote its agenda, and specifically identifies White House "favorites" David Sanger of The New York Times (the Judy Miller of The Iran Threat) and Richard Wolffe (the single most sycophantic White House stenographer after Jonathan Alter). It's nice that the White House's most loyal journalist-servants are petted on their head for their Good Behavior (it'd be sad to see that level of devotion go completely unrewarded). I'm sure Alter and Ryan Lizza's Obama books will be accordingly suffuse with White House favors. I can't recall reading any sentence quite as illustrative as this one from Politico stating (without any irony) that White House reporters insisted upon anonymity because they're afraid of angering the White House with their public statements. * * * * * For those in New York City, several groups, including the ACLU, are hosting a very interesting event this Thursday night entitled "Face to Face: Confronting the Torturers." Event information is here. UPDATE: Michael Calderone, who recently left Politico to join Yahoo News, had a very similar story a week or so ago detailing the growing animosity between the White House press corps and the Obama White House over issues of transparency and the like (animosity strangely absent during the full-scale information blackout of the Bush years). Calderone's article also detailed how reporters who anger the White House are punished and the ones who please them are rewarded, and included this quote from Richard Wolffe: "the White House has been very good to me." They certainly have, Richard. And you've been very good to them, too. It's a very warm, loving, favor-providing, mutually beneficial relationship -- just like "reporters" are supposed to have with the political officials they cover.