PUERTO RICO DEMOCRAT CORNER

Presidente de Juventud Demócrata de PR lanza reto a Partido Republicano en la isla Reta a los Republicanos en la isla a votarle en contra a Romney

2012-01-26T22:31:00.000-08:00

Presidente de Juventud Demócrata de PR lanza reto a Partido Republicano en la isla

San Juan,PR - El Presidente de la Juventud Demócrata de PR Phillip Arroyo le lanzó un reto ideológico al liderato del Partido Republicano en la isla a que sean consistentes y le voten en contra a Mitt Romney en la primaria republicana a llevarse a cabo en Puerto Rico en marzo. Y es que el candidato Mitt Romney expresó durante una entrevista en el día de ayer que se mantuvo neutral sobre el asunto del voto presidencial para los puertorriqueños y durante el debate anoche del Partido Republicano, ante la pregunta sobre si apoyaba la estadidad para Puerto Rico se quedó mudo. .

Tradicionalmente, los candidatos y Presidentes Republicanos como Ronald Reagan y George H. Bush han apoyado abiertamente el voto presidencial para Puerto Rico en el pasado. "Nuevamente, Mitt Romney demuestra que no esta comprometido con nuestra isla y su consistente cambio de postura lo exponen por lo que es; un oportunista político. Ni siquiera parece importarle los votos de los republicanos puertorriqueños en la isla, quienes son estadistas en su totalidad. Cuando sus asesores se den cuenta de la metida de pata que hizo, seguramente lo veremos cambiando su posición nuevamente; pero este pueblo es sabio. Si Romney hipotéticamente fuera una pregunta de examen de Derecho, de seguro seria uno de selección múltiple pero donde para el todas las contestaciones y posturas son correctas. ‘‘expresó el líder demócrata y estudiante de Derecho.

Las expresiones de Arroyo surgen cuando la nominacion Republicana para la Presidencia de Estados Unidos se encuentra sumamente cerrada y en donde ahora Newt Gingrich, quien consistentemente ha apoyado el voto presidencial desde hace decadas, pudiera aumentar su apoyo en la isla a raiz de la timidez de Romney en abrazar la estadidad para Puerto Rico.

''Veamos a ver si el Partido Republicano en la isla decide respaldar a un candidato como Gingrich que al menos verbalmente ha expresado apoyo a la estadidad en el pasado ó deciden apoyar a Romney, quien en el día de ayer le dio la espalda a los republicanos en la isla, como hicieron sobre 177 congresistas Republicanos cuando le votaron en contra al Proyecto de Status HR 2499 de nuestro Comisionado Residente Pedro Pierluisi, ‘‘añadió Arroyo.

"El Congreso Demócrata llevó a cabo sobre 3 vistas publicas, se aprobó el Proyecto de Status Pierluisi por un histórico margen, el Presidente Obama radicó un Informe de Status abarcador y prometió acatar los resultados del plebiscito en noviembre. Ya Romney descartó por completo apoyar abiertamente el voto presidencial, prometió derogar la reforma de salud que tanto ha beneficiado a los puertorriqueños, prometió no apoyar el Dream Act y peor de todo ni siquiera lanzó alguna promesa para atender seriamente el asunto de status como muy bien hicieron Obama y Hillary Clinton en su Primaria del 2008," expresó.

La entonces Senadora Clinton oficializó su apoyo al voto presidencial durante su campana en la isla y el Presidente Obama prometió acoger la voluntad del pueblo durante este cuatrienio respectivamente.

Las encuestas nacionales proyectan una victoria arrolladora del Presidente Obama contra Newt Gingrich de 51% a 39%, sin embargo proyectan una contienda mas cerrada entre el Presidente Obama y Romney, quien solo se encuentra abajo por dos puntos porcentuales con Obama arriba 47% y Romney con 45%.

Fuente:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Las Elecciones Congresionales del 2010

2010-10-08T08:33:00.000-07:00

Por: Phillip Arroyo

Veinte y seis dias….. twenty six days. Eso es lo que resta para el momento de la verdad. El momento durante el cual nuevamente nuestra nación dará cátedra de lo que es y representa la democracia. El tres de noviembre se llevarán a cabo las elecciones congresionales, cuando el pueblo acudirá a las urnas para escoger a su liderato legislativo nacional. Durante los pasados meses hemos sido testigos de numerosas contiendas primaristas dentro de los dos partidos principales del continente, el Partido Demócrata y el Partido Republicano. En las primarias del partido demócrata, o el “partido del pueblo”, como comúnmente se le reconoce, no surgieron muchas sorpresas ya que la mayoría de los incumbentes o nuevos candidatos lograron victorias ya pronosticadas. La sorpresa real y hasta preocupante fueron las victorias de candidatos identificados con el movimiento “Tea Party”; una facción extremista creciente dentro del Partido Republicano.

El movimiento “Tea Party” es un movimiento político cuyo liderato promueve políticas públicas de naturaleza ultra derecha y ha emitido expresiones institucionales controversiales que han llegado a ser interpretadas por algunos como discriminatorias en contra de las minorías. Como modo de ejemplo se encuentra su apoyo a la recién aprobada Ley de Immigracion del estado de Arizona. Dicha ley consiste en concederles el derecho a las autoridades de ley y orden de ese estado en parar o detener a cualquier ciudadano que posea “rasgos de extranjero” y exigirle que demuestre que es ciudadano americano. Obviamente, este tipo de ley se inclina a discriminar en contra de hispanos, ya que la población de minorías mayoritario de Arizona es el demográfico hispano específicamente de oriundo mejicano.

Es decir, si un “portorro” visita Arizona de vacaciones y posee un “tan quemaíto” natural que nos caracteriza como puertorriqueños, es muy posible que sea detenido y su ciudadanía americana sea cuestionada. Señores, esto es inconstitucional. En mi caso particular, quizás pueda pasar desapercibido a raíz de mi tez blanca o como dirían algunos de mis amistades, mi “hinchera”. Pero seguramente, si utilizo el lenguaje que he seleccionado para la redacción de este articulo durante mi estadía en Arizona, posiblemente se me aplicará el mismo procedimiento policiaco. Precisamente por el ejemplo que acabo de mencionar es que esta nueva ley de inmigración estatal es claramente de corte discriminatoria. La realidad es que las personas que legislaron esta ley no entienden y quizás nunca entenderán la diversidad de nuestra nación y la diversidad dentro de la misma raza puertorriqueña, mejicana, argentina, en fin, todos los hispanos; donde contamos con ciudadanos de múltiples colores, dialectos y culturas.

Sin embargo, es importante entender y atender el problema de inmigración ilegal en nuestra nación americana y Puerto Rico. Ciertamente es un asunto que hay que controlar. Pero se debe de hacer de una manera sensible, cuidadosa y meticulosa. La realidad es que si bien existen algunos imigrantes que llegan a nuestras costas y las del continente para entrar en actos delictivos, es mi opinión que la abrumadora mayoría llegan a la nación para trabajar, aportar y para echar sus familias hacia adelante o “pa’ lante” como diríamos en nuestra isla. Muchos imigrantes salen huyendo de los abusos o los regímenes anti democráticas de sus países de origen; en muchas ocasiones arriesgando sus vidas para lograr alcanzar la tierra prometida o llegando a dar la vida para que sus sus hijos e hijas la alcancen.

Si analizamos la historia de los estados unidos de américa podemos anotar que la nación se fundó precisamente a través de la inmigración.

Los primeros imigrantes en America eran personas que huyeron de la persecución religiosa a la cual fueron sometidos por Inglaterra. Mjummm, que interesante la similitud con los inmigrantes de hoy. El Presidente Obama ha expresado que pronto se estará presentando legislación para atender el asunto de la inmigración con una política publica titulada como la “Reforma Inmigratoria Comprensiva” Dicha política consiste en tomar medidas firmes para controlar y regular la entrada ilegal de extranjeros a nuestra nación, pero a la misma vez ofreciéndoles un proceso eficaz y facilitador para integrarse a la nación como ciudadanos americanos a través de la naturalización a aquellos que llegan a nuestras costas y al continente. Consiste en acelerar y facilitar el proceso de estos obtener la ciudadanía americana si demuestran que están dispuestos a aportar, cumplir con sus responsabilidades contributivas responsablemente y trabajar. No me queda la menor duda que la mayoría de estos llegan a la nación para precisamente cumplir con lo anteriormente mencionado.

El Partido Republicano a su vez cree en tomar medidas excesivas y extremistas para “sacar” a cualquier inmigrante ilegal y enviarlos de regreso a su país, independientemente si se encuentran trabajando y generando actividad económica en los estados unidos. Muchos de estos al no poseer la ciudadanía son victimas de abusos laborales en sus lugares de trabajo recibiendo salarios dramáticamente por debajo del mínimo salarial federal bajo amenaza de sus supervisores en alertar a las autoridades sobre su status ilegal en el país si se atreven reclamar igualdad salarial. A pesar de esto, estas personas continúan trabajando para proveerles una mejor calidad de vida a sus familias. En adición, el partido Republicano ha llegado a proponer levantar una muralla para resolver la problemática immigratoria entre Mejico y estados unidos para “proteger la frontera”. Este tipo de idea es el ejemplo simplista, hueca, primitiva y absurda del Partido Republicano . Es curioso escucharlos atacar a nuestro Presidente por sus “gastos excesivos” en la recién aprobada e histórica reforma de salud o el famoso estimulo económico que ha beneficiado a millones de ciudadanos americanos como los puertorriqueños que lo hemos bautizado como “el cheque de Obama”. A pesar de estos ataques, no mencionan el costo exorbitante que representaría levantar una muralla entre Mejico y estados unidos que saldrá del bolsillo de los contribuyentes!

Por otro lado, probablemente al leer esto, los ya “mayorcitos” se recordarán de otra famosa muralla que se levantó durante la guerra fría entre Estados Unidos y Rusia, una época oscura de la humanidad; cuando se levantó digamos, la muralla de Berlin! Es irónico que dicha muralla fuera derribado precisamente bajo la Presidencia de un Republicano, Ronald Reagan. Alguien me puede explicar la contradicción en todo esto? Reagan se tiene que estar revolcando en la tumba junto a Abraham Lincoln. Estas son las políticas del Partido Republicano de hoy que ha sido tomado de rehén por extremistas del Tea Party y liderados por personas como el controvertible reportero Glen Beck que ha acusado a los estadistas en Puerto Rico como “socialistas” con una agenda para añadir sillas demócratas al congreso a través de la estadidad. Este caballero ha llegado a tildar a la administración del Presidente Obama como una parecida y cito, “Al planeta de los simios” o Planet of the Apes” y después alegan que el sector liberal de nuestra nación estamos exagerando o sobre reaccionando cuando señalamos ataques racistas.

Sin embargo, es imperativo señalar que debemos evitar caer en la tentación de generalizar. Existen muchos lideres Republicanos que se han apartado de las acciones y expresiones del movimiento “Tea Party”. Lideres Republicanos como el ex asesor del Presidente Bush, Karl Rove que se ha expresado fuertemente en contra del movimiento demostrando coraje e ira cuando la candidata al Senado federal Christine O’ Donnell derrotó al congresista incumbente Mike Castle que llevaba cerca de 18 anos en el congreso! Castle era considerado como el Republicano moderado y de “establecimiento” y O’Connell como la Republicana radical y partidaria del movimiento Tea Party.

El pasado candidato Presidencial John McCain expresó recientemente según alegaciones de personas cercanas a el, que este movimiento “is going to fuck up the party”, utilizando su común verbo florido cuando esta en privado. Cabe señalar que McCain es considerado como un Republicano moderado o tildado por algunos como liberal. Otro ejemplo es el Gobernador Republicano de Puerto Rico, Luis G. Fortuno que ha apoyado e impulsado una reforma de Salud estatal que se nutre de la Reforma de Salud propuesto por el Presidente Obama. En adición, nuestro Gobernador Luis Fortuno fue de los poco Gobernadores Republicanos en apoyar e utilizar los fondos ARRA en beneficio de la generación de actividad económica de la isla y la nación entera. De hecho, cuando el Gobernador Republicano de Florida Charlie Crist hizo lo mismo, las fuerzas ultra derecha de su partido le pidieron la cabeza y como resultado hoy se presenta como candidato al Senado federal como candidato independiente para evitar una derrota primarista a manos del carismático candidato cubano ultra derecha Marco Rubio. Personas como Crist y Fortuno son los Republicanos decentes que representan las voces de conciencia dentro de su partido, que ciertamente va por la ruta equivocada. A ellos le doy el crédito por ser valientes.Tienen mi respeto.

Por eso son tan importantes estas elecciones en noviembre. El sector conservador extremista de salir airoso en los comicios electorales y obtener control de la Cámara de Representantes o el Senado, seguramente convertirán esos cuerpos legislativos en entes obstaculizadores de la agenda del Presidente y la administración demócrata. Obstaculizarán los futuros presupuestos, paralizarán cualquier intento de echar hacia adelante la reforma imigratoria comprensiva e incluso podrían intentar enmendar la reforma de salud federal que ha logrado que ningún paciente se le niegue atención medica si este o esta no cuenta con seguro de salud y ha sido un fuente facilitador para aumentar 200,000 beneficiaros del seguro “Mi Salud” en Puerto Rico implantada por nuestro Gobernador Luis Fortuno.

Fue precisamente las aseguradoras y las fuerzas corporativas que objetaban la reforma de salud, los que llevaron al hoy Senador Republicano Scott Brown a una victoria en Massachussetts arrebatando la silla senatorial del hermano del Presidente John F Kenny, leyenda y portaestandarte del Partido Demócrata Ted Kennedy.

Ciertamente, la candidata demócrata en reemplazar a Kennedy, Martha Coakley ejecutó una pobre campana al incurrir en el grave error político de sobre confiarse, pero no hay duda que los millones de dólares provenientes de los grandes intereses entrando a la campana de Brown fueron un factor influyente en su victoria histórica.

Por eso es importante que contactemos a nuestros familiares en el continente para que se movilicen, que participen, y que hagan que sus voces sean escuchados. Es importante que incluso viajemos los puertorriqueños para defender la agenda del partido demócrata y su mayoría legislativa ante la amenaza de un movimiento conservador cuyas políticas públicas no benefician al hispano. Recientemente el Tribunal Supremo de los estados unidos dictaminó que corporaciones podrán emitir contribuciones políticas ilimitadas a cualquier partido o candidato. Dicha decisión fue severamente criticada por el Presidente Obama durante su primer Mensaje de Estado de la Unión, ocasionando el famoso movimiento de cabeza en desaprobación del Juez conservador del Tribunal Supremo Samuel Alito. En estas estas elecciones y las del 2012 los grandes intereses se desbordarán en aportaciones multi millonarias ilimitadas a favor del Partido Republicano.

En el 2008 fuimos airosos porque millones de ciudadanos de la clase pobre, media y trabajadora aportaron pequeños donativos en grandes cantidades nunca antes visto en la historia política de nuestra nación. La campana de Obama logró esto a través de su página de internet en el 2008 que redundó en el nacimiento de la practica de “campanas políticas y recaudaciones cibernéticas”. Podemos demostrar una vez más que el poder del pueblo siempre vence la influencia del dinero.

Por eso, la Juventud Democrata de Puerto Rico, organización que he tenido el honor de presidir por el pasado ano, estaremos viajando a Orlando, Florida para ayudar en la campana de reelección del Congresista Alan Grayson. Alan ha sido un buen amigo de Puerto Rico, habiendo votado a favor y haber sido coautor del proyecto de status de nuestro Comisionado Residente Pedro Pierluisi que fue aprobado en la cámara por un margen histórico. En adición, fue un aliado del Comisionado Residente para lograr mayores fondos de la reforma de salud para Puerto Rico que redundó en la nueva reforma de salud en Puerto Rico “Mi Salud” o como a mi me gusta describir como la reforma de salud antigua con esteroides!

El 28 de octubre saldremos una delegación de la Juventud Demócrata para poner nuestro granito de arena para defender la esencia de nuestra nación americana; la diversidad. Defenderemos el derecho de todo ciudadano en obtener y mantener un seguro de salud de calidad, defenderemos el derecho de todo h inmigrante trabajador y responsable en obtener un trabajo digno que aportará a nuestra economía y que le dará una mejor calidad de vida a sus familias, defenderemos el derecho de todo estudiante universitario a obtener una educación de calidad y económico, defenderemos el sueno del reverendo Martin Luther King que expresó que todo los hombres son creados iguales, defenderemos el desarrollo de métodos biotecnológicos como el “stem cell research” o investigación de células madres para salvar vidas, defenderemos el derecho de toda mujer en decidir su planificación familiar y no el estado, defenderemos y lucharemos por aquellos ciudadanos que son discriminados por su orientación sexual y finalmente, defenderemos la igualdad del pueblo puertorriqueño y la oportunidad de definir nuestra relación política con nuestra nación americana a través de un proceso de libre determinación para acabar con las cadenas coloniales que mantienen a nuestro pueblo estancado.

De eso se trata estas elecciones companer@s. Nuestro Presidente Obama expresó recientemente que cuando uno esta en su carro y quiere ir en reversa, tira el cambio a “R” si desea conducir hacia adelante, tira el cambio a “D”. Asi que si nuestra nación quiere ir en retroceso, que voten por los “R”epublicanos. Si deseamos continuar moviendo hacia adelante que voten por los “D”emocratas!

Palabras con luz!

Veinte y seis dias…. Twenty six days…..

PR Young Democrats meet with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

2010-08-10T10:18:00.000-07:00

The Young Democrats of America Puerto Rico Chapter (YDAPR) welcomed US House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to Puerto Rico where they participated in a roundtable breakfast meeting to discuss important issues relevant to the island alongside many leaders of the Democratic Party in Puerto Rico.

During the meeting, Congressman Hoyer acknowledged and welcomed the participation of the organization and emphasized the fundamental role that YDA plays in political and social change. The Majority Leader finalized by expressing how the principles and values learned during his tenure as Vice President of YDA are still instrumental today in his political career.

YDAPR State President Phillip Arroyo, YDAPR Treasurer Josean Feliciano, YDAPR Dsitrcit Rep Anthony Carrillo and YDA National Committeeman Francisco Domenech were present at the event.

VP Joe Biden 4th of July Speech 2010

2010-07-04T21:28:00.000-07:00

"America is that rare place where citizens are not defined by their ethnicity or by their religion, not by their nationality, but what they are committed to, their ideas and ideals"

-Joseph Biden, Independence Day 2010

REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
AT A NATURALIZATION CEREMONY
FOR U.S. SERVICE MEMBERS

Al Faw Palace
Camp Victory
Baghdad, Iraq

10:45 A.M. (Local)
THE VICE PRESIDENT: General, all the general officers, Command Sergeant Major, all our military men and women and all the civilians here helping to free and make secure this great country -- I have to tell you, this is the second year in a row I’ve gotten to do this, and this is among the biggest kicks I’ve gotten since I’ve been Vice President of the United States of America. What an incredible honor.

And I have to say it again, what -- the thing I love so much about today is the irony. Here we are in the hunting lodge of a dictator who subjugated a people; who, in fact, stood for everything that we don’t stand for. And we’re in the middle of this marble palace, making a lie of everything that he stood for. I find it delicious that that’s happening. (Applause.)

I can think of no better place to be sworn in. We hold these truths self-evident, that all men -- all men, all men -- are created equal.

You’re a remarkable bunch of women and men. I’ve said this in every country and conflict that I’ve been in since I’ve been a United States senator -- was elected to the Senate 37 years ago. The one lesson every country has to learn, in my humble opinion, particularly as we deal with the resurrection of failed states around the world, is what you symbolize here today. And that is, until people understand that there is strength in diversity and not division, it makes it awfully difficult to unite a country.

Our Iraqi brethren are learning that right now, as they held a free election -- Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Indo-European, Arab. Ladies and gentlemen, their future lies in what you demonstrate, and I’m confident they’ll achieve it.

General, thank you for the introduction and, of course, for your extraordinary service, and I mean extraordinary service, to our country and, quite frankly, to this country, Iraq. And all of you, all of you, thank you from the bottom of America’s heart for your service and, I might add, for choosing us, for choosing America.

What a sight you are today. And what a powerful symbol -- what a powerful symbol you represent to those who yearn for freedom all across the world.

I can’t think of a more stirring example of patriotism than men and women volunteering, as the general pointed out, volunteering to fight for their country, to put their lives on the line, and some of your brethren, having lost their lives and limbs, to fight on foreign soil for their adopted country. You’re remarkable.

On this Fourth of July weekend, I’m reminded that you have carried the torch of our Founding Fathers, the one that they lit 234 years ago, you carried it around the world, in this case into a nation that’s not your own, in a uniform representing a nation that, until now, was not your own.

You hail from over 60 -- almost 60 countries, different countries, from Brazil to South Korea, and many more in between.

You came to America at different points in your lives. You came with parents aching for a better life than the ones they knew; others, to give a better life to their own children.

Your stories may all be different, but today you write a common chapter in American history. You’ll each raise your right hand in a moment, and in one proud moment together, you’ll recite the oath to be a citizen of the United States of America.

The general said he lived essentially in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty. All of us up here, we spend our time, some more laboriously than others, tracing our roots as to how we got to this status of citizenship.

My wife and I, we were kidding, I may be Irish, but I was smart enough to marry an Italian. I married Dominique Gioccopa’s granddaughter. But we were going back and looking. On my side of the family we are Irish, we are English, we are German, we are French. We are all a mixture. And you’re just adding to that rich, rich, rich culture.

It’s the reason -- I would argue it’s the reason -- it’s the reason why we are who we are, because we have a document called the Constitution that ensures that that mixture will result in the incredible, incredible strain that we have spread all around the world; about freedom.

And for that, I congratulate you, and I welcome you. I know your service here has not been easy and as the general pointed out, some of you, it’s the third, fourth, fifth time you have served here in Iraq. Not long ago, Iraq was a country on the brink of civil war. This is my 15th, 16th, 17th trip in. And every time I come -- this is four times or five times since I’ve been Vice President -- every time I come, because of an awful lot of brave Iraqis who gave their lives and tens of thousands of Americans who risked and/or gave their lives, it gets better, every single time I’m here.

I was telling the general, last trip in, we were coming in, landing at night, coming in the on the helicopter because we were going into the Green Zone, and I looked down, I thought, what a wonderful thing -- there was a traffic jam. There were traffic jams. First time I flew in here, right after the war, there was nobody, nobody, nobody on the road.

This nation, once embroiled in sectarian strife and violence is moving toward a lasting security and prosperity with a government that represents the interest of every member of the community in Iraq, because until they get that straight -- and they’re getting it straight -- there’s no real shot they can become what they’re capable of.

And the United States is committed, we’re committed to cement that relationship through economic, political and diplomatic cooperation, not just by the use of arms.

Last year at this ceremony, I made what I was criticized for saying a bit of a bold statement. But I was confident then as I am now about other things that are going to happen.

I said last August of this year that we will have achieved two goals. We will have helped Iraq’s leaders set the conditions for a sovereign, stable and self-reliant nation for future generations of Iraqis within a year, and we will have ended our combat mission here after more than seven years. And I’m proud to report that because of you, and tens of thousands of our sons and daughters, including our son, we’ve made good on that promise.

Iraq recently held its second national election. You know the story, guys. The first election is not the one that determines, is not the most important election in a country’s history. It’s the second election -- the second election.

Now there’s a new parliament that’s been seated, and when the new government is formed, it will mark something absolutely extraordinary -- a peaceful transition of power encompassing all the people of Iraq, maybe for the first time in their history. We’re keeping -- we’re keeping our commitments.

Last year we pulled American combat troops out of all major cities on time and, on August 31st, the American combat mission in Iraq will end. We’ll go from 140,000 troops the day I was sworn in as Vice President with the President of the United States to 50,000, who will remain.

And of those 50,000 American, those forces will train and assist the Iraqi national security forces and be prepared to deal with exigencies that they may face.

But even as we draw down our forces, as I’ve said before, we are ramping up -- we are ramping up our engagement with the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government, diplomatically, politically, economically, culturally, scientifically, in the hope of building a long and strong relationship and partnership with Iraq.

In the meantime, for those of you who remain, your safety and security has been and always will be the number one priority for the President and me and for the general officers of this United States military. And we promise, we make the commitment that we will keep, that everything you need to complete your mission will be available to you. And while you’re here, rest assured that your families at home will be honored and cared for as well.

And when you return home, all of your needs as veterans will be attended to as well. I’ve often said that the United States has only one -- and I mean this sincerely -- only one truly sacred obligation. That is to care for those who we send to war by giving them everything they need and making sure that everything that they need when they return home is available to them.

That’s the only sacred -- we have many obligations. Quite simply, we owe you. We owe all of you. And we owe your families. There’s that famous expression: “They also serve who stand in wait.”

My wife Jill was quite jealous of me the last four trips that I was in here. Our son was here, and she didn’t understand why she couldn’t come then. And so she is here with me now because she’s going to be meeting with an awful lot of the families here as well. But the point is, your families, we owe them as well, because they’re making a real, genuine sacrifice for the United States of America.

Quite frankly, folks, without you we wouldn’t survive. Without new blood and without those of you in uniform, we would not survive, we would not prevail. You represent what America has always stood for: strength, resolve, sacrifice and diversity.

America is that rare place where citizens are not defined by their ethnicity or by their religion, not by their nationality, but what they are committed to, their ideas and ideals, as stated in our Constitution.

Oh, I know everyone doesn’t -- can’t refer to the Constitution. When you ask people what it constitutes to be American, try it out. Literally try it out when you get back home. No one -- no one -- unlike any country in the world, will define it in terms other than ideas. They will not define it on what their race or religion is.

That’s our strength. That, coupled with our diversity, creates a way of life that most of the rest of the world aspires to if they haven’t already achieved it.

So what I see in front of me today is people of a different color, different stripes, of different backgrounds, of different beliefs -- all wearing the same uniform. And that uniform you wear is the ultimate symbol of what it means to be an American.

For me, this ceremony is only a formal declaration of what the President and I and your fellow countrymen believe to be true. You are already Americans.

But let’s go on now and make it official. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the service. It’s an honor to be with you. May God bless you and all may God protect our troops. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 10:57 A.M. (Local)

PR Young Democrats headed to DC for YDA Summer Meeting

2010-06-22T13:27:00.000-07:00

San Juan-The Puerto Rico Democrats have confirmed their presence for The Young Democrats of America National Summer Meeting to be held next July 16th - 18th 2010 in our nation's capital Washington, DC. During the meeting, young democrats from across the nation will converge to attend political and organizational workshops, caucus meetings, political training sessions, participate in voter registration and will also elect YDA's National Committee members to the DNC. Puerto Rico Chapter founder and Past President ,Francisco Domenech and Stephanie Hausner are up for re election. Puerto Rico State President Arroyo has signaled the island's support for both candidates during the meeting's General Session.

"I will be voting for Francisco and Stephanie. They've got the job done. It's an exciting moment for young dems across our great nation. It's always great to network with young democratic minds, learn new political strategies and promote our party's principles, but its even better to have Washington, DC as our setting", expressed Puerto Rico Chapter President Phillip Arroyo. The island's local chaper has been focused on boosting membership and creating an effective fundraising mechanism to assure increased chapter participation in national meetings.

"Fundraising is key in order to guarantee our participation and representation at this level, that is why we have been busy hosting various events with the help and collaboration of our party's leadership in Puerto Rico in order to meet our goals," concluded Arroyo.

The island's local chapter has scheduled their final fundraising event before the national meeting for July 7th, 2010 with the participation of Puerto Rico's Secretary of State and State Party National Committeeman Kenneth D. McClintock. For more info on how to contribute feel free to visit their website at http://www.ydapr.net/ , their Facebook page at http://m.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2418413105&reedd1a0f&refid=46 or contact the chapter's state treasurer Josean Feliciano at 787-604-0702.

Hate Crime Committee established in Puerto Rico

2010-06-14T10:32:00.000-07:00

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- A special committee to investigate hate crimes has been created in Puerto Rico, where advocates say gay and transgender people are the victims of an "epidemic" of violence.

The announcement by the attorney general was cheered Saturday by activists who complain the government has yet to invoke 2002 legislation establishing harsher penalties for crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

"I think this is a step in the right direction to start to collect statistics that are vital to curb the crisis of violence against the gay community in Puerto Rico," said Pedro Julio Serrano, a native of the U.S. territory and spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Serrano said 25 slayings of gay and transgender people in the past eight years may have been motivated by bias - including the decapitation in November of gay teen Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado, whose killing inspired vigils as far away as New York and Chicago.

The new government committee involves agencies including the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Juan, police officials and the island's civil rights commission, according to a statement release by the attorney general late Friday.

"With the creation of this committee, we will document the extent of hate crimes," said Attorney General Guillermo Somoza Colombani, who added that the data will help develop policies to attend to the victims.

Puerto Rico is known as a welcoming place for gays, particularly in comparison with more socially conservative Caribbean islands where homosexuals often live in hiding.
A recent string of high-profile slayings, however, has put pressure on the government. Some of the cases have received broad local news media coverage, including the April killing of a 31-year-old transgender beauty salon owner.

"It's sort of an epidemic," Serrano said. "It's too much to be ignored."

Puerto Rico-Demócrata o Republicano?

2010-05-12T08:15:00.000-07:00

Por: Kenneth McClintock, Secretario de Estado de Puerto Rico

La principal razón por la cual la mayoría de los republicanos le da la espalda al proyecto HR2499 es su temor que la eventual admisión de Puerto Rico como el estado 51 es que añadiría 6 votos demócratas en la Cámara, dos demócratas al Senado y ocho votos consistentemente demócratas al Colegio Electoral.Desde los 14 me identifiqué como demócrata moderado (más conservador en política exterior y militar, moderado en lo económico y más liberal en lo social).

Sin embargo, creo que el error más grande que comete todo el mundo es creerse que Puerto Rico sería un estado sólidamente demócrata.Del lado social, los puertorriqueños son mucho más pro-life que el continental promedio. Somos mucho más "church-going". No tan solo tenemos "family values" sólidos, sino que nuestra definición de "familia" es mucho más sólida y amplia que la del continental. En el continente, "familia" queda definida por sangre y matrimonio. Acá es por sangre, matrimonio y bautizo, creándose el concepto del compadrazgo, donde el compadre y la comadre usualmente es tratada como si fueran primos o hasta hermanos.

Del lado económico, tendemos a ser más liberales, favoreciendo los programas de ayuda social propulsados por los demócratas. Sin embargo, si muchos republicanos tuvieran una tercera parte del ingreso per capita nacional, desde esa posición de pobreza relativa ellos serían los primeros defensores de esos programas. En la medida que, con la Estadidad, la economía mejore y la dependencia económica a esos programas bajara, el apoyo a tales programas disminuiría.Del lado de relaciones exteriores y militares, el puertorriqueño tiende a ser muy apegado a lo militar. Nos referimos a nuestras mejores carreteras como "la militar". Participamos ampliamente en la milicia, no tan solo cuando había servicio militar obligatorio, sino como voluntarios, y nos distinguimos en ese servicio. Las continuas expansiones del Cementerio Nacional de Hato Tejas son el mejor y silencioso símbolo de esa aportación y apego.

No sería el primer error que cometerían analistas políticos con el comportamiento electoral de un territorio en vías de convertirse en estado.En el caso de Alaska y Hawaii, dos de las más grandes figuras senatoriales del siglo XX se equivocaron desastrosamente. El Portavoz de la Mayoría Lyndon B. Johnson se oponía a la admisión del territorio republicano de Hawaii, mientras que el Portavoz de la Minoría Republicana Everett Dirksen se oponía a la admisión del territorio demócrata de Alaska.

Después de sus respectivas admisiones, Alaska consistentemente ha votado republicano y Hawaii ha votado consistentemente demócrata!¿Que le hace pensar a McConnell, Boehner y Beck que ellos se la saben mejor que Everett Dirksen, el gigante del republicanismo del siglo XX, quien se equivocó con Alaska y Hawaii? ¿Con que seguridad contradicen a TODOS los presidentes republicanos por los últimos 36 años que, sin excepciones (Ford, Reagan, Bush y Bush), han endosado la admisión de Puerto Rico?

Puerto Rico sería un "swing state" donde los issues y los candidatos serían los determinantes de cómo votarían los boricuas a nivel nacional. No sería un estado de comportamiento electoral predecible que los candidatos de ambos partidos ignorarían , uno porque darían por sentado su apoyo, y el otro por no perder tiempo en una causa perdida.

Prelude to Equality

2010-05-03T07:19:00.000-07:00

(Me, behind Congressman Jose Serrano in blue tie)

By: Phillip Arroyo

On Tuesday, April 27th, 2010 I took a 1:54 am flight from San Juan to our nation's capital Washington, DC with the objective of visiting congressional offices to urge members to support H.R. 2499 The Puerto Rico Democracy Act. The bill was scheduled for a vote the next day, but was then pushed to Thursday. The night before, I stayed up reflecting and looking back on the path our deconolization movement had taken until then. I began to think of the fathers of our decolonization movement, Jose Celso Barbosa and Luis A. Ferre and the fight they dedicated their lives to; the fight for equality. I remembered when I moved to Puerto Rico from North Carolina and saw how my father was stripped of his ability to vote for President, despite of serving in our nation's military proudly.

At the age of 16 I also remembered watching on T.V. as HR 856 The Puerto Rico Self Determination Act passed by one vote back in 1998 and how it later died in the Senate thanks to the likes of ultra conservative anti hispanic Republican senators like Trent Lott. And yet, here I was on my way to our nation's capital to join our Governor , our Resident Commisioner and dozens of volunteers to finally help push H.R. 2499's approval and put an end to our island's unfair and undemocratic colonial political status.

I was glad that God had given me the opportunity to travel to Washington, not only to witness history, but to help garner democratic votes as a part of our Resident Commisioner Pedro Pierluisi's Democratic Party lobbying team. I left my wife and daughter behind, yet I knew this journey would be for a noble cause. It would be to assure that my beautiful 1 year old daughter will one day grow up in Puerto Rico enjoying the same rights, resposibilities and priviledges as the rest of our brothers and sisters on the mainland. I owed it not only to her, but to every single child of our great Puerto Rico.

Upon arriving to DC, we began visiting offices right away alongside Francisco Domenech, the Young Democrats of America National Committeeman. As suspected, democratic members of congress were in favor of the bill, and those who were undecided informed us of the member's inclination to support it. Ever once in a while, a staffer would present questions or doubts in regards to the fairness of the voting mechanism offered by the legislation. " Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez has told us that this bill excludes the current political status on the island," expressed one legislative assitant. It was at that moment that I realized what we were up against. We were now facing a discredited campaign of lies whose premier architects were congresswoman Nydia Velazquez and congressman Luis Gutierrez.

I was in awe at how these two hispanic members of congress were actually going against not only the will of the people of Puerto Rico, but against what our beloved Democratic Party stands for! They would argue that H.R. 2499 was a statehood bill geared and designed to create an artifical support for statehood when in reality this bill was a civil rights piece of legislation. Obviously, they were terribly mistaken, and they knew it. It was truly shameful to watch them join forces with some of the most conservative ,radical and anti hispanic republicans in the house against letting the people of Puerto Rico to decide their final political status.

I stood in disgust when I approached a Republican Congressman from Alabama. I spoke to him about the Puerto Rican soldiers who sacrifice their lives for our nation and yet cannot vote for our Commander in Chief. He replied by saying, "Son, your preaching to the Choir. I agree with you." In response I expressed, "Then we can count on your vote, right?" The congressman, a bit befuddled, timidly answered," Now, I didn't say that son. Politics is politics." This answer pretty much sums up what the Republican Party represents, a party of divisive nature, political interests and unwillingness to support the hispanic agenda. It was at that moment that I realized that we would not have a significant amount of support among Republicans, regardless of whether or not our Governor was Republican. It seemed the race barrier was very much still alive within the GOP.

Returning to the topic of the Puerto Rican members in Congress, we all know in Puerto Rico, that Velazquez and Gutierrez have been allies of the local colonialist party in Puerto Rico headed by Hector Ferrer. Everyone knows that Congresswoman Velazquez owes her congressional seat to the colonialist party in Puerto Rico. She was director of the Puerto Rico federal affairs office during the term of Governor Rafael Hernandez Colon of the colonialist party in the 1980's. This move was cleverly planned to insert a Puerto Rican "colonialist" that would later respond to that party's ideological interest in Congress.

So it should be no surprise to anyone that Velazquez betrayed our democratic party's principles by opposing H.R. 2499, because she was never a democrat! She was and still is a "Popular" or "Populete", a term used to describe members of the local colonialist party on the island.

Finally, as the day dwindled and our visits were done, all that was left was expectation and hope. H.R. 2499 would finally be brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives the very next day. Years of advocacy and efforts were now behind us and all of Puerto Rico awaited the outcome. That night, I remember being exhausted and yet I could not sleep; I kept staring at the ceiling, obviously due to the expectation, but also anxious, and hoping that the will of the Puerto Rican people be respected. The Puerto Rican people had waited too long for the opportunity to put an end to almost 112 years of colonialism and it would be a disgrace if due to political maneauvering and trickery by the opposition, their voices be silenced.

The next day, I remember waking up to a beautiful sunny morning in DC. I took a cab to the capitol and during the ride I remember being quite nervous. The driver asked me where I was from and after I answered, he indicated his awareness on the Puerto Rico Political Status issue. I told him there was a Bill to be voted on that very same day to possibly begin a process to end colonialism on the island. As I paid the fare, the driver bid me farewell and wished me goodluck, not before expressing enthusiastically, "Equality for Puerto Rico!" I winked at him and said, "You're damn right!"

After an intense and fiery debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives between supporters and opposers of the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, the final passage vote was announced. Members of Congress would have 15 minutes to cast their vote while the eyes of our nation observed via C-SPAN. We would need to reach the 216 vote threshhold for final passage. One by one, the votes started to come in and were displayed in the House Gallery. With each vote in favor, a feeling of proudness overcame me. I was proud of the members of congress who decided to do the right thing and vote in favor of our cause.

On thursday, April 29th, 2010 at around 6:35pm, The Puerto Rico Democracy Act received vote number 216......... H.R. 2499 was finally approved on a final 223 to 169 vote..... I remember sitting in amazement as my eyes began to water. We did it..............

Only one amendment was approved, inserting the current political status of Puerto Rico in the second process alongside the other options: statehood, independence, and free association. Among all members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus presided by Nydia Velazquez, 22 voted in favor and only 2 opposed the bill.

Care to guess which two voted nay? That's right, Nydia Velazquez and Luis Gutierrez. As a matter of fact the only 2 hispanic names on the Nays list were them! It's a shame these 2 members of Congress joined forces with the conservate right in an attempt to derail self determination for the 4 million American citizens of Puerto Rico. But our voices and efforts prevailed and the U.S. House of Representatives sent a clear message to the U.S. Senate stating the importance of permitting the people of Puerto Rico to finally decide.

In past days, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources has announced a public hearing to be held next May 18th, 2010 to immediately attend H.R. 2499. It is now the duty of all democrats in Puerto Rico and the mainland to continue to advocate and promote the passage of this bill in the Senate. Our moment of destiny is now. Years from now, we will be able to say to our children, that at this very moment, at this time in our history, a group of young men and women of our generation assumed their historical responsibility to put an end to colonialism in Puerto Rico and achieve full equality for all Puerto Rican Americans.

We stand before the beginning of the end of our journey. A journey paved away by the fathers of our movement for equal rights in Puerto Rico. The approval of H.R. 2499 is our "Prelude to Equality". The time has come......

Puerto Rico Young Democrats censure letter sent to Cornell by PDP Youth

2010-03-09T05:47:00.000-08:00

by Xavira Neggers Crescioni
xneggers@prdailysun.net

PR Daily Sun

A former president of Cornell University’s Puerto Rican Student Association, Manuel Natal Albelo, denounced Gov. Fortuño’s slated speech on Puerto Rico Monday evening at Cornell University, saying Fortuño is not an appropriate envoy to discuss this since his statehood stance is not representative of all Puerto Ricans and his administration’s policies have caused many problems on the island.

Fortuño was scheduled to speak before Cornell students at the invitation of Cornell College Republicans.

“I have spoken personally with the current PRSA leaders as well as other Latino organizations and I have asked for them to be the spokespeople for Puerto Ricans. In the past few weeks I have sent them different news articles about the firings of thousands of public workers, rising crime, and decisions by the Supreme Court — in sum, the call of a people,” said Natal, who is studying law at the University of Puerto Rico.

Natal said his aim was not to sabotage the activity, but to create consciousness within Cornell, where there is a diversity of opinion on Puerto Rico, adding that Fortuño would be asked hard questions that he has avoided by failing to attend similar activities at the UPR.
“While I was PRSA president we organized countless activities to educate people about Puerto Rico’s situation. The activities and forums were impartial and featured a diversity of opinion, including representatives from the different political ideologies. This activity is aimed at promoting statehood and not the cause of the Puerto Rican people and for me that is unacceptable,” Natal said.

After news of Natal’s comments came to light, the Popular Democratic Youth jumped on the bandwagon, sending two letters to the Cornell Daily Sun and Cornell College Democrats denouncing the governor’s visit and Pedro Pierluisi’s federal status bill for a congressionally binding plebiscite in Puerto Rico as undemocratic.

“[Fortuño is attending with the aim] of creating the impression our people overwhelmingly support statehood by speaking to the students as a representative of all Puerto Ricans, hiding the historic opposition of the country to his ideal,” Popular Democratic Youth said in a press release.

This in turn prompted the Democratic Youth of Puerto Rico and National Committeeman Phillip Arroyo to send a counter letter saying the vast majority of young Democrats in Puerto Rico favor Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi’s status bill.

Arroyo called Popular Youth “hypocrites” for identifying themselves as Democrats when they are members of a party that supposedly opposes the presidential vote for Puerto Rico.

La Fortaleza declined to enter the fray, declining to comment on the controversy stirred up by the governor’s visit to Cornell, while issuing a written statement on his visit with snippets from his speech. The speech includes “an outline of the fiscal and economic challenges he found upon assuming his post last year, and initiatives he is taking to put Puerto Rico once again on the route to economic growth and progress,” La Fortaleza said.
In his speech, Fortuño was to say that island’s current status creates inequality for those who live in Puerto Rico, adding the best way to resolve this matter is through Pierluisi’s status bill.

“The matter of what place Puerto Rico has at the family table of what we call America … is the great unfinished task of American democracy,” Fortuño said, according to prepared remarks.

“My own preference for the best and most apt final status for Puerto Rico is well known. I believes in equality. Our people are ready, ready and waiting, to assume full rights and full responsibilities of the citizenship that we share. As I see it, looking for other solutions or doing away with inequality is to do away with the natural destiny that guides us to U.S. citizenship.”
“I see a Puerto Rico that achieves its potential for economic, social and political development and by doing this contributes to enriching the entire nation. That is my vision of Puerto Rico and America, and a more perfect union. I hope you share it. I hope you accompany me in the fight for it,” according to Fortuño's statement.

In the morning, Fortuño met with Cornell President David Korton and professors from the National Astronomy Center that operates the Arecibo radio telescope and is headquartered at the university to discuss future funding for the local observatory, La Fortaleza said.

PR Federal District Judge Gustavo Gelpi Speech at Presidential Statues Inauguration

2010-02-17T07:16:00.000-08:00

MENSAJE DEL ORADOR INVITADOJUEZ FEDERAL GUSTAVO A. GELPÍ EN LA CEREMONIA OFICIAL DEL SENADO DE PUERTO RICOEN OCASIÓN DEL DIA DE LOS PRESIDENTESFEBRERO 15, 2010

Muy buenos días a todos. Para mí es un placer comparecer en estaactividad del Senado en ocasión del Día de los Presidentes. Hoy, el tercerlunes del mes de febrero, tanto el gobierno federal como el de Puerto Ricoconmemoran el natalicio de Jorge Washington, el primer Presidente de losEstados Unidos. Originalmente este día se conocía como el día de JorgeWashington, pero en los 1980s se le comenzó a denominar Día de losPresidentes para así también conmemorar el natalicio de Abraham Lincolnque cae en febrero 12.En el estado de Massachusetts históricamente el gobernador en el díade hoy emite una proclama en honor a los cuatro Presidentes queprovinieron de dicho estado (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, CalvinCoolidge y John F. Kennedy). Es apropiado que hoy aquí se lleve a caboalgo similar, y a su vez original, que es el develar en este histórico Capitoliobustos de los siete Presidentes incumbentes quienes visitaron nuestra isla:Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman,Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy y Gerald Ford.

El Presidente Theodore Roosevelt visitó nuestra isla el 11 dediciembre de 1906, con el propósito de conocer a los puertorriqueños, suscondiciones sociales y económicas, y su flora y fauna. Este compareció a una sesión especial ante nuestra Asamblea Legislativa, donde abogó por la ciudadanía Americana para los puertorriqueños, la cual nos llegaría once años más tarde. Además, este presidente declaró al Yunque como “La Reserva Forestal de Luquillo”.

El Presidente Hoover visitó la isla el 24 de marzo de 1931 y tambiéncompareció ante una sesión especial de la Legislatura. Allí elogió el gransentido de colaboración entre la isla y los Estados Unidos durante la PrimeraGuerra Mundial, en la cual sobre 18,000 soldados puertorriqueñosparticiparon. Señaló además que:

Nuestra Nación se enorgullece del progreso llevadoa cabo por el pueblo de Puerto Rico. Investida conlibertad, gobierno propio y oportunidad individual através de los esfuerzos de sus ciudadanos y lacooperación de los Estados Unidos ha en una solageneración emergido del estancamiento a un altolugar en la marcha del progreso.El Presidente Franklin Roosevelt visitó la isla entre julio 6 y 7 de1934. Llegó en barco a Mayagüez, y luego viajó en automóvil a San Juan,parando en Ponce y en los Baños de Coamo. Desde Fortaleza se comunicócon los puertorriqueños a través de un mensaje radial. Un año más tardecreó la Administración para la Reconstrucción de Puerto Rico con el fin deestimular el sector agrícola, generar obras de infraestructura pública ypropiciar la electrificación de la isla. Años más tarde, el 9 de marzo de1943, Roosevelt recomendó al Congreso enmendar la Ley Orgánica dePuerto Rico para que el Pueblo de Puerto Rico pudiese elegir su propiogobernador—algo que se hizo realidad en 1948, cuando el pueblo eligió aDon Luis Muñoz Marín.El Presidente Truman visitó la isla el 21 de febrero de 1948. Fue elprimer Presidente en llegar en avión, el cual aterrizó en el aeropuerto de IslaGrande. Al desabordar dirigió un mensaje a unas 4,000 personas que lofueron a recibir. Lo acompañó el Gobernador Jesús T. Piñero, a quien elPresidente había nombrado en 1946, éste siendo el primer Gobernadorpuertorriqueño (aunque no electo). En su discurso, el Presidente Trumancomentó que:

Lenguajes diferentes y trasfondos culturales distintosno son un obstáculo para la unidad democrática.Tales diferencias pueden proveer la base para unamás rica y fuerte democracia. . . Tanto en PuertoRico y en el continente, nosotros los Americanosestamos buscando y encontrando la solución a[nuestros] problemas en la manera democráticaAmericana—mediante valor, imaginación ycooperación.

Durante su visita, el Presidente Truman visitó el Fanguito y luego tomó laCarretera Número Dos hacia Bayamón, donde visitó el Hospital de Distrito.Luego fue al Hotel Jagüeyes en Aguas Buenas en donde almorzó antes deregresar a San Juan. Cabe señalar que unos años después de su visita, enenero 28 de 1952, el Presidente Truman nombró al abogado puertorriqueño,Clemente Ruiz Nazario, como el primer juez puertorriqueño para el TribunalFederal en Puerto Rico.

El Presidente Eisenhower visitó la isla el 4 de marzo de 1960. Viajóa Dorado a dirigirse en una reunión de la Asamblea Americana dondecompartió con el Gobernador Muñoz Marín. Bajo este Presidente seconvirtió en ley el Federal-Aid Highway Act de 1956, bajo el cual todos los Estados y territorios recibieron fondos federales para mejorar las vías detránsito y así hacer la transportación de personas y carga más veloz yeficiente.

El Presidente Kennedy visitó a Puerto Rico el 15 de noviembre de1961. Este campeón de los derechos civiles trabajó junto al GobernadorMuñoz Marín en el desarrollo del Estado Libre Asociado. También contócon el apoyo de Muñoz Marín en su Alianza de Progreso para Sur América,bajo la cual se envió ayuda económica a varios países en la región y seabogó por los derechos humanos de sus ciudadanos.

Finalmente, el Presidente Ford visitó la isla el 26 de junio de 1976,donde participó en la Conferencia de la Cima Internacional. Allí comentó:Señor Gobernador, esta es mi primera visita comoPresidente a Puerto Rico. Es un momento adecuadopara reflexionar sobre la rica y larga historia decooperación y participación que esta isla y su gentecomparten con los Estados Unidos . . .

Existen algunos, sin embargo, quienes buscandistorsionar los hechos, y confundir a otros sobrenuestra relación con Puerto Rico. El récord es claro;el récord está abierto. Estamos orgullosos de larelación que hemos desarrollado juntos, e invitamosal mundo a examinarlo . . .

Aquellos quienes pueden inclinarse a interferir ennuestras libremente determinadas relaciones, debensaber que tal acto será considerado una intervenciónen los asuntos domésticos de Puerto Rico y EstadosUnidos. Será un acto no amigable el cual se resistirápor las vías necesarias.El Artículo II de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos crea el cargode Presidente. El Presidente, también conocido como el “PrimerMandatario” es la cara de la nación. Es quien pone en vigor la políticapública nacional, o sea, ejecuta las leyes de los Estados Unidos. Porejemplo, las iniciativas nacionales sobre combatir el crimen, la inmigración,el medio ambiente, y el exterior, entre otras, las inicia y lleva a cabo elPresidente.

Bajo sus poderes constitucionales, el Presidente es quien nombra, conel consentimiento del Senado, a todos los jefes de agencia que lo asisten enejecutar su política pública, al igual que a los embajadores y juecesfederales. Además, es quien firma tratados internacionales, para luego serratificados por el Senado. Finalmente, el Presidente es el comandante y jefede todas las Fuerzas Armadas de la Nación.Nuestro diario vivir es impactado por numerosas e importantísimasdecisiones que toma el Presidente de los Estados Unidos.

Sin embargo,históricamente los puertorriqueños nunca hemos gozado del votopresidencial mientras residamos en la isla.

Los puertorriqueños sí participamos desde 1980 en el importantísimoproceso de primarias presidenciales, para el cual la designación y uso defondos públicos ha sido avalado por el Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico.En el 2008 la isla vivió un momento histórico cuando los Senadores HillaryClinton y Barrack Obama se enfrentaron en primaria para la candidatura ala presidencia del Partido Demócrata. Ambos vinieron a la isla para hacercampaña, la cual fue cubierta por los medios noticiosos a través de losEstados Unidos. El voto de los puertorriqueños quienes participaron endicha primaria ciertamente tuvo impacto nacional.

Retomando el tema del voto presidencial en Puerto Rico, el mismo hasido objeto de discusión y debate en múltiples foros gubernamentales, tantoa nivel federal como local. El 6 de abril de 1960 el Gobernador Luis MuñozMarín, en una comparecencia ante el Congreso federal favoreció se leextendiese el voto presidencial a los puertorriqueños, ya que en esemomento se contemplaba extenderlo a los residentes del Distrito deColumbia. En aquel entonces, señaló Muñoz que: “esto resolvería uno delos problemas sin resolver en los Estados Unidos y es el problema de notener ciudadanos americanos en ninguna parte bajo la bandera Americanaexcluidos de votar para Presidente de los Estados Unidos”.Una década más tarde el Comité Ad Hoc, nombrado por el PresidenteRichard Nixon y el Gobernador Luis A. Ferré para estudiar la concesión delvoto presidencial a los residentes de la isla, recomendó en su informe de 18de agosto de 1971 el extender dicho derecho.

En el 1974, durante los 1990s y en el 2004, se llevaron ante variostribunales federales, como cuestión de derechos civiles y constitucionales,casos en los cuales se buscaba por vía judicial el voto presidencial para lospuertorriqueños en la isla. Los casos fueron presentados dada la inacción delCongreso Federal a resolver este asunto. En dichos litigios, aunque concierta renuencia por parte de algunos jueces, consistentemente se determinóque el voto presidencial no es posible salvo enmienda constitucional o quePuerto Rico se convirtiese en estado de la Unión.

Un número significante de estos juristas en sus dictámenes, no obstante, comentaronenergéticamente sobre dicho paradigma. Por ejemplo, en 1974 el Juez deDistrito Federal visitante, Luther W. Youndahl, señaló: “Este Tribunalprofundamente comparte las expresiones [del Comité Ad Hoc de 1970 -1971] y opina que es inexcusable que todavía existe un número sustancialde ciudadanos de Estados Unidos que no pueden legalmente votar por elPresidente [ ] de Estados Unidos.” La Juez del Distrito Sur de Nueva York,Shira Sheindlin en el 2000 comentó:

Igual que aquellos ciudadanos de Estados Unidosresidiendo en el Distrito de Columbia y en loscincuenta estados, aquellos quienes residen enPuerto Rico han llevado a cabo el llamado más altode su ciudadanía, luchando y muriendo en loscampos de batalla en dos guerras mundiales, y lasguerras de Korea, Vietnam y el Golfo. Aún así, apesar de pagar por su ciudadanía con sangre, losciudadanos americanos en Puerto Rico no hanentrado a la caja de votos presidencial. Esinconcebible a nuestro orden constitucionalpretender que el gobierno ponga a nuestros hijos ehijas en la línea de peligro y no reconocer el poderde estos individuos a tener voz en elegir quien tomaesa decisión.El Juez Presidente del Tribunal de Apelaciones para el SegundoCircuito, John Walker, igualmente expresó en el 2001: “Comparto con micolega la preocupación que a ciudadanos de Estados Unidos residiendo enlos territorios no se les da una voz con significado [en elegir a supresidente].” A su vez, otro Juez del Segundo Circuito, Pierre Leval,observó que la exclusión de los puertorriqueños en la elección delPresidente crea serios “problemas de justicia, resentimiento y reputaciónmenoscabada ante la comunidad de naciones”. Este Juez fue más allá alsugerir que el Congreso de los Estados Unidos, para solucionar estainequidad, podría requerir a los Estados a que porcentualmente aceptencomo suyos votos presidenciales emitidos por los residentes de Puerto Rico.El Juez Howard del Primer Circuito señaló en 2005 que “dichainhabilidad [de votar por el presidente] es antiética a nuestra fundación devalores democráticos”. Y su colega, el Juez Torruella, quien ha llegado aopinar que los puertorriqueños sí tienen el derecho al voto presidencial,señaló:

Es particularmente repugnante en este momento ennuestra historia, cuando tratamos de convencer a loshabitantes de lugares lejanos del mundo del procesodemocrático y la validez de su expresión mediante elvoto. Es sumamente irónico que cerca de 3,500ciudadanos Americanos de Puerto Rico apoyandichas metas mediante su presencia en Iraq yAfghanistan como miembros de nuestras FuerzasArmadas, a la vez que a ellos mismos se les deniegaestos derechos, en particular el elegir a suComandante en Jefe.

. . . Y lejos de ser un asunto de interés local para losciudadanos americanos en Puerto Rico solamente, lainequidad a la que se somete a estos ciudadanos esuna lesión para todo americano, porque tanseguramente como la situación actual causa dañoirreparable a los ciudadanos americanos que residenen Puerto Rico, denigra igual de profundamente a laNación completa y a la Constitución.

Aunque en Puerto Rico, al día de hoy, existen y se respetan diversasideologías políticas y opiniones sobre el voto presidencial, lo que acabo deresaltar evidencia, sin duda, la importancia que ha cobrado en el sistemafederal de gobierno la figura del Presidente, en particular desde laperspectiva de los derechos civiles de todos los ciudadanos americanos.Como estamos aquí para celebrar los cumpleaños de Washington yLincoln, entiendo apropiado acabar este mensaje con unas anécdotas deambos Presidentes, las cuales nos muestran su enorme impacto en la vida detodos los ciudadanos americanos, aún más de doscientos y ciento cincuentaaños de sus respectivas muertes.En su discurso inaugural el 30 de abril de 1789, el PresidenteWashington declaró:

Ningún pueblo puede estar más atado a reconocer laMano Invisible que el pueblo de los Estados Unidos.Cada paso mediante el cual el Pueblo ha avanzadohacia el carácter de una nación independiente, parecehaber sido distinguido por un regalo de la divinaprovidencia.

En el caso de Washington mismo, la intervención divina no puede habersido más cierta. A sus 19 años, durante su único viaje fuera del continenteamericano, contrajo viruela en Barbados en el año 1751. A pesar de sugravedad, que duró un mes, su recuperación lo inmunizó contra esta seriaenfermedad, lo cual lo beneficiaría en el futuro. Durante la Guerra de laIndependencia, la viruela tomó la vida de miles de soldados americanos.Washington, quien era el General de las tropas Americanas, sin embargo, nose vio afectado. Así pudo estar al mando en todo momento, y más aún,constantemente visitar a sus tropas con frecuencia para motivar a lossoldados.Como capitán en el ejército inglés durante la Guerra entre Inglaterray Francia, durante una batalla en Pittsburgh en el año 1754, murieron todoslos soldados ingleses y americanos, salvo Washington, quien entonces eraun joven de 23 años.

Durante la Guerra de la Independencia, la noche del 25 de diciembrede 1776, se congeló el Río Delaware como consecuencia de senda tormenta.Esto llevó a las tropas enemigas a bajar su guardia, lo cual Washingtonaprovechó. Llevó a cabo su famoso cruce del Río Delaware junto a sustropas, para luego ganar la batalla de Trenton, que marcó el momentodecisivo en la Guerra para los Americanos.Una vez acabó la guerra, Washington entregó su comisión militar y asíse retiró. No obstante, el pueblo Americano en señal de aprecio, quería queWashington se convirtiese en el Rey de la nueva nación. Este, tajantementey con humildad, rechazó tal idea, pues entendía que la Nación Americanaera producto de la desconfianza del Pueblo Americano hacia los gobiernosmonárquicos. Sin embargo, una vez los Estados ratificaron la Constituciónde los Estados Unidos, Washington fue llamado a ser el Primer Presidentede la Nación. Este humildemente acordó salir del retiro y fue nominado ala presidencia sin oposición alguna.

En 1796, cuando finalmente decidió que no aspiraría a un tercertérmino en la Presidencia, Washington compartió las siguientes palabras,tomadas de su mensaje de despedida que circuló en periódicos a través delos Estados Unidos y que reflejan sus valores federalistas:Es importante . . . que el hábito del pensamiento enun país libre inspire precaución en aquellosencomendados con su administración para que selimiten dentro de sus respectivas esferasconstitucionales, evitando en el ejercicio de lospoderes de un departamento [del gobierno] que seextralimite en [los poderes] de otro. El espíritu de laextralimitación tiende a consolidar los poderes detodos los departamentos [del gobierno] en uno [solo]y de esta forma crear, cualquiera que sea la forma delgobierno, un verdadero despotismo. Una estimaciónjusta de ese amor por el poder y tendencia a abusarloque predomina en el corazón humano es suficientepara satisfacernos de la verdad de esta posición.Abraham Lincoln, quien nunca conoció a Washington, nació en sumapobreza. Su intelecto y perseverancia, sin embargo, lo llevaron aconvertirse en excelente abogado y un gran orador. Durante la convenciónRepublicana de 1858 dijo su famosa frase “Una casa dividida contra símisma no se puede sostener”, refiriéndose a que el Gobierno de los EstadosUnidos no podría continuar unísono mientras los estados sureñospromoviesen la esclavitud y los del norte no. Luego, durante suincumbencia como Presidente durante la Guerra Civil, Lincoln aseguró lapermanencia de la Unión Americana y acabó con el mal de la esclavitud.

El 19 de noviembre de 1863, durante plena Guerra Civil, en elcementerio de Gettysburg, Lincoln dio su más famoso discurso — ElGettysburg Address — el cual duró sólo dos minutos y medio. Entiendoapropiado en esta ocasión leérselo a ustedes:Ochenta y siete años ha, nuestros padres crearon eneste continente una nueva nación, concebida bajo elsigno de la libertad y consagrada al principio de quetodos los hombres nacen iguales.

Estamos ahora envueltos en una vasta guerra civilque pone a prueba la idea de que esa nación, ocualquier otra así concebida y consagrada, pueda porlargo tiempo subsistir. Nos hemos reunido en laescena de una de las grandes batallas de esa guerra.Hemos acudido para dedicar parte del campo debatalla a que sirva de última morada de quienesdieron sus vidas para que la nación viviese. Esenteramente justo y propio que obremos de estemodo.

Con todo, a decir verdad, mal podríamos dedicar, niconsagrar, ni glorificar este campo. Los valientes,vivos aún o muertos ya, que aquí combatieron, lohan consagrado muy por encima de nuestros escasospoderes. El mundo apenas si advertirá o recordará loque aquí se diga, mas no podrá olvidar jamás lo queaquí hicieron aquellos. A los vivos nos corresponde,ante todo, dedicarnos a completar la obra que tannoblemente adelantaron los que aquí combatieron.Más bien, nos corresponde a nosotros dedicarnos ala ingente tarea que nos aguarda: que esos muertosvenerados inspiren en nosotros una mayor devocióna la causa por la cual dieron ellos la postrera suma desu fe; que aquí solemnemente proclamemos queestos muertos no habrán muerto en vano; que estanación, bajo la guía de Dios, vea renacer la libertad,y que el gobierno del pueblo, por el pueblo y para elpueblo no desaparezca de la faz de la tierra.La humildad y fe en lo divino del Presidente Washington, al igual quela firmeza del presidente Lincoln en preservar la unión Nacional bajo unaforma de gobierno democrática, son valores que todo Presidente de laNación debe tener. Más aún, son cualidades que cada uno de nosotros ennuestras propias vidas debemos emular.

Pongámonos ahora todos de pié en señal de respeto y admiración aestos dos grandes presidentes, Washington y Lincoln, al igual que a todosaquellos otros que hasta el día de hoy han seguido sus pasos.

¡Que Dios bendiga al Pueblo de Puerto Rico y la Nación Americana!Gracias.

Doing Nothing is Not an Option

2010-02-10T05:44:00.000-08:00

Washington (CNN) -- Michelle Obama expressed confidence Tuesday that Congress will enact some sort of change to improve the nation's health care system.

"We don't have a choice," the first lady told CNN's Larry King in an interview that aired Tuesday night. "When we look at these statistics, we're spending billions of dollars on preventable diseases, and new health care legislation could go a long way to improving prevention, first and foremost."

She addressed the need for people to have access to specialists such as pediatricians who can gather critical information and track it.

"So we have to get this done and I'm hopeful that Congress will come together, that the American people will recognize that doing nothing is absolutely not an option."

Obama's appearance coincided with the launch of her initiative to improve the fitness of young people, starting with her own two grade-school children. Obama said her daughters, Sasha and Malia, were not eating right and not exercising enough before her husband won the White House, and it showed in their body-mass index.

"I was fortunate enough to have a pediatrician who worked in an urban environment in the African-American community," she said. And he was tracking BMI. And he saw little uptick in the kids' BMI, and he kind of pulled me aside."

Obama said she was initially shocked.
"I thought I was doing what I was supposed to do, and I hadn't noticed any changes in my kids," she said. But she accepted the doctor's admonition as a "wake-up call" and began to make changes.

"It was portion sizes; it was a few more cooked meals," she said. "We had no absolutes except no desserts during the week. Took sugary drinks out of the lunch boxes and put in water and had more milk, had more fresh-squeezed juices, things like that."
The point is that small changes made a difference.

The 44-year-old Chicagoan said she felt it was important to share her family's success with other Americans and to point out that the changes they made were manageable ones.
"The point is that small changes made a difference," she said. "It wasn't a whole-scale upheaval of our lives to see the outcomes."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.4 percent of children ages 2 to 5 are obese; 17 percent of those 6 to 11 are obese; and 17.6 percent of those 12 to 19 are obese.
Obesity is linked to risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and Type 2 diabetes.

"This isn't about weight, and it's not about looks," Obama said. "It's not a physical issue. It's really about the quality of life of our kids."

Though members of the first family eat less fast food than they once did, they have not eliminated it from their diets, the first lady said.

"What I tell my kids is if they're eating right, you know, 70 percent of the time, then when they go to a birthday party or it's a Saturday and they're out and they can stop for ice cream and somebody wants to grab pizza, or they have pancakes with chocolate chips in it, it's not a big deal."

The graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School said she works to keep the White House "sort of a stress-free, work-free zone" for her husband.
In some ways, the family's life is like many others', she said. Her husband reads to the children at night and tucks them into bed.

"He still goes to the parent-teacher conferences. ... He goes to basketball games and soccer games. He can't go to every single one of them because some -- on Saturdays, oftentimes, he's working."

Still, the trappings of power can be limiting. He does not drop his children off at the nearby Sidwell Friends School.

"Quite frankly, they don't want him to," she said. "They think his motorcade is a complete embarrassment."

The first lady described life in the White House as "like living in a big hotel with a whole bunch of fun people that you can work with. But then when -- when the doors close, it's -- it's like home."
She acknowledged, in response to a question, that sometimes her husband gets mad.
"Oh, yes. Yes, he's human. You know, if you prick him, he'll bleed."

But the president tries to maintain a constructive approach, she said. "He's always about finding the solution. And he knows if you go too far emotionally, if you get too angry or you -- if you become too complacent, sometimes you miss the answer in between. And that's, I think, one of the strengths of him as a leader."

Asked for her read on Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska who ran on the GOP ticket for vice president, Obama would not bite.

"I don't have a read," she said. "I mean, I try not to make or set opinions about people that I haven't had any, you know, substantive interaction with. I mean, I know what you see on TV."
She added, "I think it's wonderful to have strong female voices out there, but I don't know her."
The first lady was effusive about her husband's former rival for the top spot on the Democratic ticket, Hillary Clinton.

"She would have been an amazing president. She was an amazing attorney. She's a phenomenal professional. And she's proven to be a tremendous asset in -- in so many ways," she said.
Asked what she expects on Valentine's Day, Obama told King, "Oh, I expect the moon, the stars and the sun, honey."

Asked what she usually gets, she said, "I usually get dinner, and a gift of some sort."
And what does her husband get?
"A nice card."

Puerto Rico May Face Statehood Choice

2010-01-30T11:06:00.000-08:00

Puerto Rico May Face Statehood Choice
January 29, 2010
National Journal
Puerto Rico May Face Statehood Choice
Even some insiders are surprised to hear that Congress is about to take up the issue of Puerto Rico’s political status

By Erin McPike

The issue of Puerto Rico’s political status has been simmering for nearly 50 years. Now, at a time when Congress has plenty of other pressing items on its agenda, lawmakers may soon be voting on a measure to allow the residents of the largest U.S. territory to determine their own fate.

Last July, the House Natural Resources Committee approved the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, which would establish at least one plebiscite in the Caribbean territory to survey the populace about what status they want for their island. According to the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the bill will come up for a floor vote this year. “It remains a priority,” spokeswoman Katie Grant said.

Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, a Democrat who represents Puerto Rico in Congress, together with Gov. Luis Fortuno, an energetic and rising Republican star, have marshaled 182 House co-sponsors for the legislation, including 58 Republicans. The two say they have commitments from more than 264 House members — 180 Democrats and 84 Republicans — to vote for the bill.

Puerto Rico’s quest for self-determination has, in fact, long had supporters on both sides of the political aisle, and in an election year, both parties are interested in courting Hispanics. “Every Republican president in the last 50 years has supported this process,” Fortuno said in an interview. “President Reagan was a strong supporter of this process, and actually of statehood as well.”

President Obama has also signaled support. “We… pledged during my campaign to work with Congress and all groups in Puerto Rico to enable the question of Puerto Rico’s status to be resolved during the next four years,” Obama wrote in a letter to Fortuno last January, shortly before his inauguration. “I am fully aware of the difficulties that Puerto Rico has faced in the past when dealing with this issue, but self-determination is a basic right to be addressed no matter how difficult.”

Although the House approved a Puerto Rico self-determination bill by a single vote in 1998, the Senate never took up the matter. Back then, it was a pet project for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., who hoped to attract Hispanic votes, and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who saw echoes of his home state’s long fight for statehood.

In a recent interview, another Alaska Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, said she also is sympathetic. Murkowski is vice chairwoman of the Senate Republican Conference and has taken the lead in reaching out to Hispanics and women. She noted that she has met with Puerto Ricans in Washington and has visited the island to discuss the statehood issue.

“It needs to be that decision of the people,” Murkowski said. “I know that it has been an issue that has provoked a great deal of stress on both sides, but I think if the people of Puerto Rico believe strongly that they need to become a state, we need to respect that.”

Puerto Rico’s commonwealth form of government — in Spanish, Estado Libre Asociado (ELA), or Free Associated State — was approved in a public referendum in 1952 under the leadership of then-Gov. Luis Munoz Marin, according to The Almanac of American Politics. Under ELA, Puerto Rico is part of the United States for purposes of international trade, foreign policy, and war, but has its own laws, taxes, and representative government. Ever since Munoz retired in 1964, the central issue in Puerto Rico’s politics has been status: Should the island continue or modify ELA, should it seek statehood, or should it seek independence?

For many years, public sentiment moved gradually toward statehood. In a 1967 referendum, Puerto Ricans voted for ELA over statehood 60 percent to 39 percent. But in a 1993 referendum, the vote was 48 percent for ELA and 46 percent for statehood, according to The Almanac. In a November survey of 787 Puerto Rican voters, pollster Pablo Ramos found that 58 percent favored statehood, results almost identical to a 2008 survey.

The pending legislation is not self-executing: It simply provides for Congress to authorize an official survey in Puerto Rico that would inform the U.S. government about what the territory’s citizens want. Congress could then move forward as it sees fit. If a majority of Puerto Ricans voted to change the territory’s status, a second plebiscite would take place three to six months later that would ask residents whether they would like to become a state, gain independence, or become a sovereign nation with U.S. ties. If a majority voted for the status quo in the first plebiscite, the proposal allows for another plebiscite eight years later.

Fortuno, a telegenic 49-year-old who has begun turning heads in national political circles, served as resident commissioner in Congress for the four years preceding Pierluisi. The two are close friends who grew up together and share support for statehood. But they emphasize that the legislation they are pushing merely calls for self-determination, not statehood.

“The Founding Fathers never intended for 4 million American citizens to be left in any territory forever,” Fortuno contended. Pierluisi put it this way: “Until and unless you settle this issue, you have to continuously deal with it, because you need to make sure that the people consent to this, because it is clearly not a permanent-type arrangement; it cannot be. You have to check on the people.”

Pierluisi noted that Puerto Rico is not treated like a state under federal health care or housing programs, for instance, and he says that the duo’s goal is “parity.” Hospitals in the territory receive lower Medicare reimbursements than all other U.S. hospitals.

Opponents contend, however, that the legislation is a statehood bill. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., a native Puerto Rican who is close to the territory’s Commonwealth Party that supports the status quo, is among the naysayers. She has said she does not support the bill because it would not allow the people of Puerto Rico to establish the process by which the island’s status would be determined. Velazquez introduced legislation in the previous Congress authorizing a constitutional convention, whose proposal would be ratified through a referendum and then submitted to Congress.

Other opponents include Republicans who believe that Puerto Rican statehood would be a boon to Democrats in electoral politics — even though House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Should Puerto Rico become a state, its four million residents would likely equate to six congressional districts and eight electoral votes. But for Republicans worried about the boon for Democrats, Pierluisi has this message: “The last two territories that became states were Alaska and Hawaii. And the members of Congress thought… that Alaska would be Democrat and Hawaii would be Republican, and they read it all wrong.”

Puerto Rico’s population is heavily Catholic and socially conservative, he pointed out. Members of Congress “shouldn’t be trying to predict where Puerto Rico would go,” Pierluisi said. “We have a Republican governor and a Democrat resident commissioner. We have a majority of Republican mayors and members of the Legislature right now.”

Back home, Fortuno has to make massive cuts in the bureaucracy and budget because of the recession. Phil Musser, a GOP strategist and former executive director of the Republican Governors Association, noted that passage of the pending legislation “would just be the feather in his cap.”

“Fortuno is one of the unnoticed assets of the Republican Party,” Musser said, adding that the governor “is making big, tough choices in his first year in office and has the ability to become a larger and more important voice in the Republican Party nationally because he’s a good communicator, well liked by his peers, and is a leading Hispanic in a party that’s bereft of Hispanic voices.”

Even though the House is expected to pass the legislation easily, most leadership aides questioned about it were unaware of the bill’s status and contents. Some called Puerto Rican issues messy. The issue would head next to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said he, too, did not know that the House is all but certain to pass the legislation.

“We’re going to see what the House does,” Bingaman said. “We haven’t discussed it yet in my committee.”

Fortuno and Pierluisi hope that a House victory will provide momentum for them to start lobbying the Senate. Pierluisi aims to find 10 veteran senators — six Democrats and four Republicans, particularly those with large Puerto Rican constituencies — to co-sponsor the bill.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, both said they were familiar with Fortuno from his four years in the House. But even though the two senators have been actively involved in GOP outreach to Hispanics, they stopped short of saying where they would come down on the Puerto Rico Democracy Act and were even unsure about how to talk about it.

Fortuno, however, is quick to point out the upside for his party. “It would present an opportunity, for example, for senators who may have a tougher position on immigration, to show that they may have that position on immigration but they are not anti-Hispanic,” he said.

Bill Clinton message to Puerto Rico in regards to Haiti!

2010-01-25T12:25:00.000-08:00

President Bill Clinton speaks to Puerto Ricans in regards to our brothers and sisters in Haiti who need our help in their great time of need. Click on the video!!!

Maurice Ferre for US Senate 2010

2009-12-25T20:06:00.000-08:00

Maurice Ferre : Biographical Sketch

Maurice Ferre is the former six-term mayor of the City of Miami and a candidate for the United States Senate.

The life of Maurice Ferre has been marked by a style of public service that encourages people of vastly different views and philosophies to work together for the common good and progress.

Ferre began his career in public service as a member of the Florida House of Representatives and then went on to be elected a commissioner of the City of Miami. He served as the Mayor of Miami from 1973 until 1985. Ferre provided leadership and vision as Miami took its place as one of the world's most vibrant, eclectic, diverse international cities. As Mayor, Ferre focused on economic development, job creation, and a visionary approach to improving South Florida's transportation, business and public infrastructure.

After his terms as mayor, Ferre has involved himself in far-reaching business interests, public service and commentary on current and political affairs.

Ferre was born in the American territory of Puerto Rico and is a resident of Miami. He is a graduate of the University of Miami and is married to M. Mercedes Malaussena Ferre. They have been blessed with six children and 12 grandchildren.

Contact
Ferre2010
P.O. Box 558807
Miami, FL 33255
305-910-0207
info@ferre2010.com
News Room

Alex Sink for Governor of Florida 2010

2009-12-25T19:55:00.000-08:00

About Alex

A Different Kind of Leader. A Watchdog for the People of Florida.

It’s a story all too rare in government these days. The story of a leader whose experience and values, leadership style and perspective, were shaped by a life lived outside of politics.

Drawn to Serve

After a successful twenty-six-year career in private business, Alex Sink looked to Tallahassee and was troubled by what she saw: A city filled with career politicians and entrenched special interests. A capital long on politics-as-usual, but disappointingly short on solutions to Florida’s challenges.

Alex recognized the need for problem-solving, new ideas and accountability in state government.

So in 2006, never having sought elective office before, Alex ran for Chief Financial Officer.

In the words of the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Alex offered Floridians something new and different: “Unmatched business experience and forward-looking plans.” Or, as the Bradenton Herald put it: “There’s no need to pick a politician when there is a professional like Alex Sink standing in the wings.”

Nearly every newspaper in Florida joined the News-Journal and the Bradenton Herald in endorsing Alex’s candidacy for CFO.
The Florida Times-Union praised Alex’s “impressive qualifications,” noting “she has the perspectives of a businesswoman.” The Orlando Sentinel extolled her “results-driven demeanor and results-defining career.” The Palm Beach Post urged Floridians to “start fresh, with Sink.”

A Proven Track Record

Today, as the state’s elected CFO, Alex oversees nearly 3,000 employees and an annual budget of $300 million in the Department of Financial Services – where she puts her business experience and know-how to work as the outspoken fiscal and consumer watchdog for the people of Florida.

As CFO, Alex has kept her pledge to crack down on unaccountable, poorly-performing, no-bid state contracts – slashing her department’s no-bid contracts by more than half just two years into her term. She’s scoured Tallahassee’s bureaucracy for inefficient practices and wasteful spending, using her business acumen to save taxpayers millions.

And Alex has been an aggressive consumer advocate, launching innovative and long-overdue initiatives like the Safeguard Our Seniors Task Force, created to protect older Floridians from financial fraud.

Decades of Experience

Before her election in 2006, Alex’s distinguished business career culminated in her leadership of Florida’s largest bank. For seven years as president, she managed more than $40 billion in customer deposits while supervising more than 9,000 employees in 800 branches and earning a reputation for credibility, integrity and dedication to her customers.

While in the private sector, Alex repeatedly gave back to her state and community. Governor Lawton Chiles appointed Alex to the Commission on Government Accountability to the People, charged with finding ways state government could be more responsive to the people of Florida. As vice chair of Florida TaxWatch, she became a recognized leader on fiscal responsibility. And Alex dedicated herself to Florida’s children through her service on Governor Chiles’ Commission on Education, the Hillsborough Education Foundation Board of Directors and as chair of Take Stock in Children.

Alex’s civic work includes service in the Florida Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, Junior Achievement of West Central Florida and as chairman of the board of the United Way of Hillsborough County.

Alex grew up on a farm in Mt. Airy, North Carolina, and earned a degree in mathematics from Wake Forest University. She resides in Thonotosassa with her husband, Bill McBride. They are the proud parents of Bert, a junior and football player at Stanford University, and Lexi, a sophomore at Wake Forest University.

Congressman Pierluisi speaks to Hispanic Association for Corporate Responsibility

2009-12-21T03:32:00.000-08:00

Congressman Pedro R. Pierluisi
Hispanic Association for Corporate Responsibility
Corporate Inclusion Index Survey
Press Conference
December 16, 2009

I want to join my colleagues on the Corporate America Task Force in
commending the Hispanic Association for Corporate Responsibility for
their longstanding efforts to advocate for the inclusion of Hispanics in
corporate America. Hispanics are the largest minority group in the
United States—as well as the fastest growing. Our community should
aspire to be represented in every field and at a level roughly
commensurate with our community’s proportion of the nation’s
population as a whole. I am proud that this Task Force has worked with
organizations such as HACR to make this goal a reality.

The purpose of the Corporate Inclusion Index Survey that HACR is
releasing today is to measure how well—or how poorly—our nation’s
most prominent companies are doing when it comes to reaching out to
Hispanics. Among the factors the survey examines are the number of
Hispanics that these companies are hiring to serve in upper management
positions and on their corporate boards. I am disappointed but not
surprised that the results of the survey indicate that Hispanics still have a
ways to go to be fully included in all aspects of corporate America.

As Hispanics continue to grow as a segment of our nation’s population, we
must emphasize to these companies that including Hispanics in their
business model is not only the right approach but the smart approach. At
the same time, when talking to the Hispanic community, especially our
youth, we must consistently underscore the importance of education and
hard work, so that companies have a broad and deep pool of qualified
Hispanic applicants from which to choose.

Again, I congratulate HACR on the production of this Survey. As we
move into a new year, we must renew our commitment to expand
Hispanic participation in corporate America.

Secretary McClintock delivers Speech during La Casa de Puerto Rico event in Killeen, Texas

2009-12-14T09:43:00.000-08:00

Kenneth D. McClintock Speech
Secretary of State of PR
Killeen, Texas
December 11th, 2009

First of all, I’d like to thank all the organizers for once again inviting me to address you here in Killeen.

A lot has changed since then.
Last time I was here, I was ending my term as the 13th President of the Senate of Puerto Rico.

Today I address you as the 22nd Secretary of State of the United States Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Last time I was here, I’d informed you that I was not going to run for office in the 2008 elections, and
would reenter private life in January 2009. Well, one out of two ain’t bad in baseball!

I, in fact, did not
run in 2008. However, I wasn’t counting on being recruited by Luis Fortuno, after winning the governorship by the largest landslide majority since Don Luis Munoz Marin left La Fortaleza, to serve as
his Secretary of State and in the role of Lieutenant Governor.

The past 11 months, have been difficult, challenging, but fulfilling. Difficult because when we took office
in January we inherited the largest state budget deficit in the nation, larger proportionately than
California’s.

Challenging, because there was not enough money in the treasury to even pay the January 15th payroll and we were days away from becoming the first state level government to fall into junk bond status in Wall Street.

Fulfilling because the dire fiscal situation we encountered has allowed us to start taking steps Puerto Rico should have taken decades ago.

Did you know that, in spite of 8 consecutive years of structural deficits, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico requires a balanced budget?
Did you know that Puerto Rico has more state government employees than Texas and every other state, except for California and New York?

Because of that huge deficit and payroll, we’ve been forced to cut expenses to the bone.

The cell phone on which I receive Gladys Casteleiro’s calls is paid by me, not by the government.

Neither the Governor nor the Secretary of State are sending out even one single Christmas card this year. There is no money.

However, the austerity measures we’ve taken, including laying off several thousand employees with a generous severance package, along with many new laws that will stimulate our economy and create private sector jobs that will help Puerto Rico move ahead. And our economic indexes are starting to show that our economy is starting to move in the right direction---up, after nine years of moving down.
Our federal government has helped us a lot. Using the population data from the 2000 Census, and eyeing the political power that 4 million Puerto Ricans wield on the mainland, the White House has moved over 6 billion dollars into our economy.
As we approach the eve of the year 2010, we have to start focusing on the 2010 decennial federal census.

The data from the 2010 census will not only determine how many congressional districts every state gets, but it determines how federal funding will be allocated for the next 10 years, and which are the population groups with the numbers to exert the most political power in this century’s second decade.
There are 4 million residents of Puerto Rico and we want to make sure they get counted.

However, equally important is that every Puerto Rican be counted on the mainland, too. In 2000, there were many Puerto Ricans in Texas. Do you know how many? 69,504.
We want to be sure that when the political strategists study Texas’ demographics, they’ll be astounded at the number of Puerto Ricans that live in this state.
…….but to be astounded, we need you to spread the word and make sure that every person with a drop of Puerto Rican blood in their veins checks off the “Puerto Rican” checkbox in the Census questionnaire that will arrive in every Texan home next March.

If you were born in Puerto Rico, you’re Puerto Rican…Check it off!
If both parents were born in Puerto Rico, you’re Puerto Rican…Check it off!
If only one parent was born in Puerto Rico, you’re Puerto Rican…Check it off!
Y tu abuela a donde esta!? If even one of your grandparents is Puerto Rican, your Puerto Rican too!!! Check it off!!!

How many will check off the box next April 1st? The same 69,504? 75,000? 80,000? Only you can make that grow. The more Puerto Ricans that are reflected in the Census as living in Texas, the more you’re U.S. Senators and your congressmen and congresswomen will be inclined to vote in favor of issues related to Puerto Rico in the U.S. Congress.

The higher the Puerto Rican population on the mainland, the more future Presidential candidates will pay attention to our issues.

There are two factors that have been responsible for most of what Puerto Rico is today. First, our military service and, second, our numbers.
Most of you who are here tonight whether in Europe or the pacific, in Korea and Vietnam, in Iraq and Afghanistan served in the military, or you have held the fort at the home of those who served in the military.

Your service has given Puerto Rico the moral authority to seek that of which the federal government has given us, and we are forever grateful for that.

However, every one of us, whether we’ve served in the military or not, can provide strength through numbers, making sure that your service is not forgotten, and that our rights are not ignored, through the sheer strength of the size of our population in Puerto Rico, in Texas and the other 49 states, but that strength can only be reflected once every 10 years, on Census Day. 2010, on April 1st when you check off that box that defines your being, your past, your aspirations and your future, when within this diverse nation of many different colors and ethnic backgrounds you declare that you are Puerto Rican and you care for Puerto Rico.

I urge you during the remaining 109 days before Census Day to remind every one of your Puerto Rican relatives, friends and neighbors, to be sure and check off the Puerto Rican checkbox in their Census Questionnaire.

Through that checkbox we will gain the attention, the focus, the respect and the help that Puerto Rico needs throughout the next decade.

Once again thank you for inviting me here tonight to address an issue that unites us and to invite you to take one single step that will strengthen us all:

Check it off!!!

President Obama's Speech at West Point in regards to Afghanistan

2009-12-02T06:49:00.000-08:00

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 01, 2009
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York
8:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated.

In short: The status quo is not sustainable. As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.

And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region. Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously. First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.

To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over. Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

Now, let me be clear: None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can't count on military might alone.

We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks. We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them. We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity. And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not.

That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for -- what we continue to fight for -- is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity. (Applause.)
As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth. (Applause.) This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. (Applause.) I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

America -- we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you.

May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

END 8:35 P.M. EST

Injection of Diversity within Republican Party in 2012?

2009-12-01T06:26:00.000-08:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

This past week, a cyber web blog within the latest internet Newsweek Edition pointed at Puerto Rico Republican Governor Luis Fortuño as a potential 2012 GOP candidate in the next elections. What is truly interesting is the Republican Party’s shift of leadership and the beginning of a series of changes that appear will be executed in order to inject diversity within the political organization with the sole objective to appeal to the overwhelming population of Hispanics and African Americans in our nation.

Nonetheless, it will take a little more than just minority faces on the ballot. Republicans need to change their postures on social issues such as Immigration Reform and Universal Healthcare in order to be competitive; frankly I don’t see that happening. This is not the first time distinguished Puerto Ricans have been considered for high national office. Back in 2000, it was also rumored that Democratic Governor Pedro Rossello was on the short list to be appointed Secretary of Health, had Al Gore pulled through the Presidential election. In addition, within the Democratic leadership in Puerto Rico, an array of respected leaders such as Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock and Democratic Party Chairman Roberto Pratts are more than qualified for any federal high elected position.

Rumors also indicate Luis Fortuño as a potential running mate of failed Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin for the 2012 elections. In my humble opinion, I believe the GOP has a better shot with Fortuño, opposite Palin, who proved to be disastrous during John McCain’s unsuccessful bid for the White House. As a matter of fact I am one of those that actually believe the 2008 elections would have been a lot closer had it not been for Sarah Palin’s poor performance with the press and during the Vice Presidential debate where Senator Biden took her to school . Barack Obama would have won anyways, but I suspect it would have been closer if McCain had a running mate of the likes of Fortuño.

The Republican Party discovered during the past election cycle that if their ticket was not attractive to the above mentioned demographic, they would have slim chances of prevailing. That would explain the GOP’s last minute effort to add a “minority” on Senator John McCain’s electoral ticket; a woman, Sarah Palin. The change was seen by many political analysts as “a tad too late” during a Barack Obama superstardom crusade that concluded with an onslaught of Hispanic and African American votes that helped the President win key states such as Florida and North Carolina; two conservative states.

As a result of Luis Fortuno’s possible run within the GOP 2012 ticket, the rumors of the Republican Party’s evolution of representation with Hispanic and African Americans up front and center are spreading like wildfire. As a democrat, none of this surprises me at all. Immediately after Barack Obama became President, Michael Steel was immediately elected RNC chairman, the first African American to do so.

Talk about swift damage control, although many watchful saw this move as political hypocrisy. The Republican Party has finally found out that without the minority vote you cannot win the Presidency of the United States of America.

As a Puerto Rican and as a fellow statehooder, I was proud to know of the mentioning of Governor Luis Fortuno as a possible Presidential candidate because it may represent the cultural diversity closure that will bring our nation to full circle. As a Democrat, I believe Barack Obama is the person that represents the best interests of our nation, will achieve and establish historic policies and shall be reelected. Nonetheless, it is a motive of celebration to know that both majority parties of the nation are now fully aware of the importance of diversity; the Republican party is finally beginning to do so, and that is positive.

In summary, I applaud the Republican Party for their intention of possibly considering a Hispanic, in this case, a highly qualified Puerto Rican for the highest office of our nation. Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure the first Hispanic to be elected President will be a democrat. On a humoristic note, Luis Fortuño still has time to switch national parties for 2016 though.

PR Secretary of State Kenneth McClintock's Remarks at TESOL National Convention

2009-11-20T07:36:00.000-08:00

November 20th, 2009

Ponce, PR

Good morning to all,

First of all thank you for inviting me to address you today, and thank you for being here. On a personal note, this convention is very close to my heart as my late mother, Nivea Hernández de McClintock, envisioned the need for a TESOL chapter in PR and along with others, acted to make this vision a reality, some forty years ago.

I still remember when she served as host to TESOL’s national convention when the event was held at the Caribe Hilton shortly after the then new tower was inaugurated. In her honor, my brother Steve, my sister Elaine and I have provided 9 scholarships to help TESOL teachers, and seven TESOL college students attend this convention and I’ve assured your President Miguel Camacho that we want our help to become an annual tradition.

English is not only the official business language of the world, has replaced French as the language of diplomacy, but it is also the language of the future as it is the tool with which most cyber platforms are designed and conceived. In spite of the fact that most websites available through the Internet have translated versions, some better than others if I may add, it is undisputed that social, economic, and news related sites are oriented to those who are capable of reading and writing in English. English is a fundamental tool for those who wish to pursue any kind of commercial endeavor using the substantial benefits of today’s state of the art technology. If you think about it, most common names and jargon used in today’s economy stems from the English language: e-mail, v-card, attachment, contact list, just to name a few.

And yes, in spite of those who would like to have it otherwise, English is one of Puerto Rico’s two official languages.

For many years, way too many, we have been immersed in sterile political disputes as to what extent the English language, its teaching, dissemination, is or ceases to be, part of our culture and of our reality as a nation, territory, people, commonwealth, nation-island, judicially incorporated state. Unfortunately, we don’t even agree on the semantics we use to define what we are or aspire to be. And what is really pitiful is that those who end up paying the price are those who cannot and must not be affected by philosophical or ideological rhetoric: OUR YOUTH. Denying hundreds of our kids a high quality bilingual education due to ideological political warfare is unethical, inconsiderate and flat out wrong.

The government should immediately grasp all federal and state opportunities available to improve TESOL education in Puerto Rico and in order to do so, it is absolutely imperative that we take advantage of federal programs that facilitate this objective. For instance, in 2005 a golden opportunity was lost in regards to the “Reading First Program”, a federal education program mandated under the No Child Left Behind Act and administered by the federal Department of Education. Having been the only jurisdiction that had yet to receive money from the $1 billion-a-year initiative, PR did not receive some $60 million from the first two years of the six-year grant, after failing to spend the money allocated in fiscal 2003, and declining another payment for fiscal 2004.

What was the reason behind this? Puerto Rico government officials “disagreed” with the instructional model outlined in the approved plan and the methods for teaching reading in English. Politics at its best, Public service at its worst.

The program would have required that schools funded by Reading First use "scientifically-based" reading instruction. Now, I’m not here to point fingers, but I will say this… this CANNOT and WILL NOT happen again. Equipping our youth with essential educational tools is imperative for their professional development and success which at the same time benefits our island. In the era of globalization in which we live in, speaking and writing fluently in the English language is the key to success and propels future young Puerto Rican leaders abroad. Our administration has begun to work tirelessly to make sure those tools are available to each and every student in Puerto Rico, regardless of political affiliations. Our students deserve no less…. I know that parents share this view. When my son Kevin turned 5 nine years ago, my wife Marie and I applied to enroll him in Cidra’s Bilingual School. 96 applicants for 20 slots.

A year later, when my daughter Stephanie was ready for kindergarten at the same public bilingual school, there were over 120 applicants for 20 slots. I’m sure that among those applicants’ parents you’d be able to find statehooders, populares and indepependentistas with separate ideological views but who agreed on one thing- their kids were entitled to a bilingual education.

So, as you celebrate the 40th anniversary of your promising organization, may I paraphrase John F. Kennedy’s favorite poet, Robert Frost, in saying that TESOL still has promises to keep and miles to go before you sleep and miles to go before you sleep. Thank You.

Mis Pensamientos sobre la Situacion Economica en Puerto Rico

2009-11-06T12:46:00.000-08:00

Mis pensamientos……

He decidido desplegar a través de este foro cibernético mi sentir y punto de vista en relación al ambiente político y socioeconómico que vivimos en la actualidad en Puerto Rico. Durante el primer año de la nueva administración gubernamental del Partido Nuevo Progresista, he notado varios acontecimientos y acciones de la oposición política representada por el Partido Popular Democratico que deben ser rechazadas tajantemente por el pueblo de Puerto Rico. En primer lugar, si bien es cierto que durante la pasada campaña nuestro Gobernador Luis Fortuno expresó que no despedirá empleados públicos; es meritorio y obligatorio señalar que durante el proceso de transición se descubrió que la pasada administración encabezado por Anibal Acevedo mentía repetidamente cada ano sobre los recaudos del gobierno, para que así la legislatura PNP aprobara presupuestos inflados. De esta manera se hundía más la situación económica de la isla y encima de esto, luego de la veda electoral, para contar con personas que formaran parte de su equipo de avanzada reclutó sobre 30,000 empleados públicos populares para que le respondieran a el durante la campana.

La contratación de estas personas se llevó a cabo ilegalmente por razones puramente políticas para lograr votos a su favor en las pasadas elecciones. Desgraciadamente para el y su partido, la jugada no funciono, y recibieron la peor derrota en toda la historia política de su colectividad. Nos debemos preguntar como Anibal Acevedo sabia durante los debates antes de las elecciones que Luis Fortuno despediría la cifra exacta de 30,000 empleados? Un memo interno de Fortaleza durante el termino de Anibal Acevedo Vila revelado hace varias semanas con fecha del 2006, despliega un plan de cesantías de la pasada administración que planeaban implementar, pero que no ejecutaron debido a su alto costo político. Por eso es que el candidato del PPD sabía. Por eso es que inflaron la nomina gubernamental con mas empleados luego de la veda electoral.

Como resultado de este movimiento ilegal, se empeoraron aun más las finanzas del estado. A raíz de esto, luego de que la nueva administración estimara el déficit en alrededor de 1.3 billones, no fue hasta el proceso de transición que se encontró que el déficit realmente era de 3.2 billones! Cabe señalar que este déficit representa un 40% del presupuesto del país, siendo el déficit más alto en toda la nación americana. Por cada dólar del gobierno, la pasada administración gastaba un dólar y cuarenta centavos! Al hablar del proceso de despidos es importante mencionar que cesantias se estan llevando a traves de toda la nacion Americana totalizando sobre 111,000. En el estado de California nada mas, el Gobernador Arnold Scwarzenegger ha despedido sobre 28,000 empleados gubernamentales, mucho de estos maestros. En Puerto Rico no se han despedido maestros permanentes. Ademas de contar con el peor deficit de la nacion, contamos con mayor numero de empleados de gobierno que 47 estados de los Estados Unidos. Si, asi es, una islita de 100 por 35. El estado de la Florida posee una poblacion de 15 millones de habitantes, y solo cuenta con 65 agencias del gobierno. Puerto Rico solo tiene 4 millones de habitantes y tiene 139 agencias! Al confrontar a los izquierdistas con estos datos se quedan totalmente mudos.

Ante este panorama desastroso heredada por las irresponsabilidades fiscales de la pasada administración, el Gobernador Luis Fortuno ha tenido que tomar la decisión difícil de recurrir al despido masivo de empleados públicos para atemperar y reducir el déficit para así salvar el crédito del país. De no haber tomado acción, el crédito de Puerto Rico hubiera caído en nivel de chatarra, causando una crisis monumental donde mas adelante perderían sus empleos sobre 130,000 empleados gubernamentales a diferencia de los 17, 000 empleados cesanteados en la actualidad.

Un buen ejemplo es la de un cirujano en medio de un proceso tedioso para tratar a un paciente que sufre de sangrado cerebral donde la presión de la cavidad craneal amenaza con causarle la muerte al paciente. El cirujano en algunas ocasiones se ve obligado a extraer una cantidad de sangre para así disminuir la presión craneal y salvarle la vida al perjudicado paciente. Si no se recurría al despido de una cantidad de empleados gubernamentales, el gobierno no iba a contar con nomina para pagarles a TODOS los empleados del gobierno, produciendo así otro cierre de gobierno; una especie de “muerte gubernamental’’ en términos comparativos con lo anteriormente mencionado. Nuestro Gobernador optó por salvar a Puerto Rico y no correr el chance de otro cierre de gobierno; y lo hizo sin pensar en las consecuencias políticas, ya que es innegable el alto costo político que esta decisión difícil representa.

Mientras tanto, a través de los últimos meses hemos observado al liderato de la oposición Popular intentar capitalizar políticamente sobre las decisiones difíciles pero necesarias del Gobernador. Lo han acusado por implantar un gobierno al estilo Republicano. Esta aseveracion es incorrecta ya que han habido Gobernadores Democratas que tambien han tenido que reducir empleados gubernamentales. Un ejemplo es el ex Gobernador de Washington state y hoy Secretario de Comercio de los Estados Unidos, Gary Locke que tuvo que despedir miles de empleados de gobierno para enfrentar la crisis fiscal en su estado. La realidad es que es asqueante ver como los causantes del desastre económico, hoy se pintan como monjitas de la caridad y caminan en las marchas con los unionados y cesanteados con el único propósito de obtener capital político y exposición de los medios para adelantar su agenda política y electoral. Luego de recibir la paliza del siglo en las pasadas elecciones, no es de extrañar que la colectividad colonialista viera esta situación económica como la oportunidad dorada para reponer su imagen e intentar revivir una organización política que no cuenta con un rumbo ideológico definido, carece de liderato respetable y va en camino a la desaparición. Por eso es importante educar al pueblo sobre estos hechos y alertarlos sobre un esquema político fríamente calculado a puertas cerradas entre lideres del sector izquierdista del Partido Popular, lideres de las uniones e inclusive lideres separatistas radicales como el movimiento nacionalista en Puerto Rico.

La realidad es que este sector de izquierda al no contar con el apoyo del pueblo en las elecciones (el Partido Independista ha perdido su franquicia electoral en las pasadas 2 elecciones) recurren a mecanismos y oportunidades indirectas para lograr la materialización de su ideal independentista y antiamericana. Lo hicieron con el asunto de la lucha por la salida de la marina en Vieques, lo hacen a través del “ambientalismo”, y ahora intentan aprovechar el despido de miles de empleados públicos e utilizarlo como balón político para lograr sus agendas. Como otro modo de ejemplo es triste ver como luego de la salida de la marina, ni un solo líder independentista o Popular ha empujado la iniciativa de las limpiezas de los terrenos de practica en Vieques, y que la única persona llevando el caso judicial ante el gobierno de los estados unidos para exigir la limpieza sea precisamente un abogado procedente de los estados unidos continentales!

El ano pasado tuve la oportunidad de dialogar con este abogado, y al preguntarle sobre el caso que lleva, me expresó que lo han dejado solo y que todo el liderato político que apoyaba la salida de la marina, hoy no se encuentran ni en los centros espiritistas. “After they obtained their political goals with the Vieques issue, they disappeared,”” concluyó el abogado. Este ejemplo demuestra la hipocresía del sector izquierdista de Puerto Rico que ahora pretende utilizar la situación de las cesantías para hacer lo mismo. Le exhorto a cada hermano y hermana puertorriqueño que al analizar las noticias impartidas por la prensa local, siempre indaguen, cuestionen y sobre todo verifiquen la misma. En muchas ocasiones, al mirar más allá, descubrimos la verdad.

Esto me lleva al tema del periodismo en Puerto Rico. Entre los métodos anteriormente mencionados del sector separatista para adelantar su ideología, la prensa local en muchas ocasiones parece lucir como facilitador y aliado de este sector. A través de las ultimas dos décadas en donde el status quo o status colonial de la isla se ha visto amenazada por la fuerza electoral del movimiento estadista que cada cuatrienio coge mayor auge, algunos miembros de la prensa local recurren al proceso de difamación y asesinato de reputaciones del liderato anti colonial del Partido Nuevo Progresista para frenar el movimiento estadista. Un claro ejemplo de esto fue la fabricación del famoso caso Pension Cadillac del ex Gobernador Pedro Rosselló , una pesquisa que comenzó con una publicación del periodista Oscar Serrano del rotativo Primera Hora, dicho periodista es conocido por sus posturas anti americanas y socialistas. Luego de un largo periodo de difamación y el proceso de vista preliminar en centro judicial de San Juan, se declaró No Causa a la acusación en contra de Rossello. Luego de la determinación, vimos al ex Secretario de Justicia Roberto Sanchez Ramos explotar con mucha desilusión demostrando claramente la agenda de la pasada administración en conjunto con la prensa local para destruir el movimiento estadista.

Me temo que algunos miembros de la prensa hoy continuan con su agenda de difamación pero esta vez en contra de Luis Fortuno. No debe ser sorpresa para ningún estudioso del ambiente político en Puerto Rico este hecho, ya que con la aprobación en el Comité de Recursos del proyecto de status en el Congreso y los constantes rumores de su aprobación pronto en el pleno de la Cámara de Representantes federal, la oposición separatista se encuentra desesperado ante la posibilidad de que el pueblo escoja directamente en las urnas su futuro político con los Estados Unidos de América y no mediante una asamblea constituyente donde un grupo de políticos y lideres cívicos se reúnan a puertas cerradas a decidir el status político de Puerto Rico. Si analizamos con detenimiento los pasados comicios plebiscitarias llevadas a cabo en la isla, notaremos varios datos interesantes. Desde el primer plebiscito en adelante, el Estado Libre Asociado ha reducido su apoyo dramáticamente a diferencia de la opción descolonizadora mediante la estadidad. En el pasado plebiscito llevado a cabo en el 1998, el Partido Popular tuvo que crear una quinta columna avalada por un tribunal supremo controlada por el Partido Popular en aquel entonces para agrupar votos del sector colonialista e independentista para contrarrestar la ya inminente victoria de la estadidad como señalaban todas las encuestas. Gracias a esa coalición política entre el PPD y el PIP se logro derrotar la estadidad en aquella consulta plebiscitaria. Dicho plebiscito se llevó a cabo localmente o sea, fue un plebiscito criollo por lo que no estaba avalado por el Congreso de nuestra nación. En el 2004 durante las elecciones generales, nuevamente utilizaron este mecanismo para derrotar al candidato a Gobernador del PNP, Pedro Rossello.

De lograrse aprobar el actual proyecto de status HR 2499, el proceso plebiscitario futuro será con aval congresional, lo que decidirá el status político de Puerto Rico de una vez y por todas. Ese es el miedo de los colonialistas y separatistas en Puerto Rico. Tienen miedo de que el pueblo se exprese abrumadoramente a favor de la unión como el estado 51 de la nación americana. Uno por uno, todos sus argumentos en contra de la estadidad se les han caído. El argumento y el kuko del Sales Tax era una herramienta de miedo que por décadas utilizaba el PPD para inyectarle temor al pueblo en contra de la estadidad. Hoy contamos con un sales tax de 7% y bajo una colonia. El segundo argumento era la aseveración del racismo predominante en los Estados Unidos que obstaculizaría la posibilidad de que Puerto Rico se uniera como el estado 51.
“No nos quieren,” decía el liderato Popular al pueblo para desviarlos de la formula descolonizadora estadista. Sin embargo, en las pasadas elecciones presidenciales, nuestra nación eligió el primer Presidente afroamericano con raíces y familiares que residen en Africa! En adición, la primera latina nombrada al Tribunal Supremo de nuestra nación, Sonia Sotomayor es de origen puertorriqueña! Que orgullo sentimos por este histórico acontecimiento. Lamentablemente, y para sorpresa de muchos, pero no para mí, la prensa local no cubrió el nombramiento de Sotomayor a la saciedad.

Parecía mentira ver como cadenas de noticias nacionales como CNN y Fox le daban mayor cubertura al nombramiento de esta distinguida Puertorriqueña que la misma prensa local! La razón recae nuevamente en las agendas independentistas de varios miembros de la prensa en coordinación con los sectores más radicales en Puerto Rico. La nación americana es una nación representativa de la diversidad mundialmente. Tanto es así, que no existe en ninguna ley federal, el ingles como idioma oficial de los Estados Unidos.

La influencia hispana, específicamente la puertorriqueña ha logrado trascender en la política pública de los Estados Unidos. Los hispanos hemos desplazado a la comunidad afroamericana como la primera minoría en la nación. Por eso hoy, vemos candidatos presidenciales hablando español para obtener el favor de la población hispana. No es una exageración expresar que sin el voto hispano, ningún candidato Presidencial gana unas elecciones. Esa es la realidad que ni los mismos enemigos de la descolonización pueden negar. El tercer argumento que se les ha caído es en relación a la supuesta “incompatibilidad cultural” entre Puerto Rico y el resto de la nación. Hace poco estuve en el estado de Tejas y pude apreciar la riqueza cultural de este estado que cuenta con una gran población hispana y que aun mantiene sus tradiciones vivas. Lo mismo se puede observar en Miami, Florida donde si no hablas español, difícilmente podrás ser exitoso. Lo vemos en Nueva York, que es para mi el “municipio mas grande de Puerto Rico” ya que cuenta con 1 millon de puertorriqueños. ¿Incompatibilidad cultural? Que el liderato del PPD le presente ese argumento a los sobre 4.2 millones de puertorriqueños que viven en los Estados Unidos. Si, escucharon bien, hay más puertorriqueños viviendo en los Estados Unidos continentales que en nuestra isla de Puerto Rico.

En semanas recientes, he notado una campana subliminar proyectado ante los medios en relación al olimpismo en Puerto Rico. Muchos anuncios se han transmitido a través de los medios televisivos desplegando el Comité Olimpico y los logros de nuestros atletas a nivel mundial. Me parece que el único argumento que utilizará el PPD en contra de la estadidad es la perdida de nuestro equipo olímpico al convertirnos en el estado 51. Es el único argumento que les queda para desviar el pueblo de una mejor calidad de vida y perpetuar la colonia. La realidad es que esto no necesariamente sucederá, ya que la ciudad de Hong Kong cuenta con su propio equipo olímpico a pesar de formar parte de China, que también cuenta con su propio equipo olímpico. Sin embargo, pronto veremos el liderato Popular llevando a cabo discursos sobre esto para inyectarle pasión sentimental de patriotismo para contrarrestar la estadidad.

En resumen, el sector independentista y colonialista se encuentran en estado de alarma, porque saben que todos sus argumentos se han desvanecido y hoy hacen todo lo posible para evitar la consecución de la integración de Puerto Rico como el primer estado “latino” a nuestra gran nación Americana.

Este pueblo puertorriqueño es sabio, y se da cuenta de todos los trucos y esquemas formulados a puertas cerradas por los enemigos de la descolonización. Nuestro querido Puerto Rico ha sufrido el colonialismo por mas de 500 anos, 400 bajo Espana y sobre 100 bajo los Estados Unidos. Es hora que rompamos con las cadenas del colonialismo para que podamos estirar nuestras alas y lograr el gran potencial de nuestro pueblo. Que se nos permita votar en las elecciones Presidenciales, que se nos conceda el poder político que por derecho tendríamos de 7 Congresistas y 2 Senadores que lucharán por los intereses de nuestro pueblo. Que se logre la igualdad de Puerto Rico y nuestros soldados que valientemente y con mucho orgullo han servido en cada guerra en defensa de nuestra nación y los principios democráticos que representa a pesar de no contar con derechos equitativos de voto y representación. Mi padre fue uno.

Siempre he pensado que la descolonización de nuestra isla se lograría cuando el pueblo desarrolle la madurez necesaria para reclamar sus derechos como ciudadanos americanos y exigirle a la nación Americana que se nos trate como iguales como lo hizo Martin Luther King, como lo hizo el movimiento de derechos civiles durante la década de los 60.

Ese momento histórico se acerca y con la ayuda de nuestro buen Dios se logrará.

Que Dios bendiga esta hermosa tierra y los hijos e hijas que componen la misma.

Puerto Rico Status Debate Hits Congress

2009-10-22T06:32:00.000-07:00

Puerto Rico Debate Hits Congress
By Emily Yehle
Roll Call Staff
Oct. 19, 2009, 12 a.m.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_42/news/39608-1.html
The never-ending debate over Puerto Rico’s political status is again knocking on Congress’ door, but the island’s politicians are betting that a host of new factors will mean that this time they won’t be turned away.

Their hopes center on a bill that would sanction a plebiscite — or survey — on whether Puerto Ricans want to keep the island’s current status. If a majority vote for a new status, a second plebiscite would give three options: statehood, independence or “sovereignty in association with the United States.”

Similar legislation has never made it far in the past, thanks to a sharply divided electorate in Puerto Rico and the unwillingness of many lawmakers to get caught in the middle. Most of the island’s residents belong to one of two camps: those who want Puerto Rico to become a state and those who want it to be a “new commonwealth” with more political autonomy.
The plebiscite bill is the brainchild of statehood supporters, raising the suspicion of commonwealthers and thus hindering its progress through Congress in the past. But Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi (D) argues that this year’s version of the bill has more support than ever, with 182 sponsors, 58 of whom are Republicans. In 2007, a similar bill garnered a total of 132 sponsors.

“This time around, the difference is we’re ready. Now the only matter remaining is to take it to the floor,” Pierluisi said in a recent interview. “I am confident that it will get a very substantial majority when it gets to the floor and that it will get substantial votes from both sides of the aisle.”

The bill passed the House Natural Resources Committee in July with a vote of 30-8, and the committee released its report earlier this month. But whether it gets to the House floor is still uncertain; a similar bill never made it that far in the 110th Congress, despite the committee’s support.

Like last time, the bill has the support of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has kept publicly neutral on the issue. In an e-mail last week, spokesman Drew Hammill said only that Pelosi “supports the rights of the Puerto Rican people to decide for themselves the status of Puerto Rico.”

“To that end,” he said, “the Democratic leadership will continue to gather input from all the stakeholders involved as we continue to discuss this legislation.”

Those stakeholders almost certainly include Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), a native of Puerto Rico who is chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and supports a constitutional convention to hash out all of Puerto Rico’s options. In 2007, she introduced a bill outlining that proposal — which was backed by then-Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá (D), a supporter of the “new commonwealth” — but she declined to offer such a bill this Congress.
Instead, she sent a letter to Pelosi decrying Pierluisi’s bill as the product of a “non-transparent” and “dismissive” process.

“This approach must not be sanctioned,” she wrote. “It would be particularly unfortunate for such a non-transparent approach to be applied to an issue that is highly controversial and so central to the lives of all Puerto Ricans.”

Velázquez has also argued that the plebiscite does not allow Puerto Ricans to determine their own future. Instead, she supports the constitutional convention, where participants would come up with a proposal, allow residents to vote on it and then send it on to Congress.
“It is important that Puerto Rico status legislation is based on consensus and true to the traditions of democracy,” she said in a statement last week. “The people of Puerto Rico deserve a transparent process for self determination, and H.R. 2499 fails to accomplish that.”
But Velázquez’s opposition might not be enough to prevent the bill’s progress this time around. Unlike last Congress, the island’s politicians are solidly behind the plebiscite. Gov. Luis Fortuño (R) backed a similar bill in 2007 when he was Resident Commissioner, and a majority of Puerto Rico’s legislators want the bill to pass.

Jeffrey Farrow, a co-chairman of former President Bill Clinton’s Interagency Group on Puerto Rico, said that such a united front helps the bill’s chances “an enormous amount.”
“The fact that the previous governor was against the bill in the last two Congresses was an impediment because of deference to a governor, because he had developed ties with Members as Resident Commissioner, and because he used government resources to pay for extensive lobbying against it,” Farrow said.

This year’s bill also is slightly different from those in the past, adding an option that is meant to appease those who support a “free association” — or something like it — between Puerto Rico and the United States. The parameters of the association are decided by the two entities in the relationship; for example, the U.S. provides certain aid and social services to Palau in return for full military control, among other things. The U.S. is also in free association with Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.

Pierluisi’s bill is somewhat vague on what such a relationship would mean to Puerto Rico and titles it as “sovereignty in association with the United States.” It describes that sovereignty as “a political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution.”

In an interview, Pierluisi said he was trying to “avoid unfamiliar language, trying to avoid labeling, trying to be all-inclusive,” referring to some groups’ mistrust of the “free association” title.

“It’s a way of grasping the claims of all those who do not want Puerto Rico to be either a state or independent or in the current territory status,” he said.

He hopes the bill will pass the House before the end of the year, paving the way for an effort in the Senate. If the bill makes it that far, Pierluisi might need the backing of the White House to make progress — and so far, President Barack Obama has not weighed in on the issue. Velázquez has already highlighted this fact, asking in her written testimony that the Natural Resources Committee “afford the President the opportunity to act and seek the expertise of this committee as well as other stakeholders.”

But Pierluisi said he is confident the bill’s momentum in the House will jump-start its progress in the Senate. He also emphasized the nonbinding nature of the bill — the plebiscite, he said, is only a way for Congress to “check the temperature” of the island.

“This is a pretty straightforward process,” he said. “I don’t rule out that down the road, once we get a House vote on this, that I may approach the White House. I have simply so far kept them abreast of the bill and my efforts.”

Jeffrey Farrow's Remarks at San Juan Rotary Club

2009-10-09T11:58:00.000-07:00

Remarks of Jeffrey L. Farrow
Co-Chair, the President’s Interagency Group on Puerto Rico, 1994-2001,
and Staff Director, U.S. House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, 1982-94
to the Rotary Club of San Juan
October 6, 2009

Thank you, Dr. Maldonado, for the introduction. Thank you, President Sigas, John Regis, and others for the invitation. And thank you all for coming.

I have been asked to speak about the status bill in Congress. Before I do, some points about what I will say and my general perspective on the status issue.

First: What I say will not be influenced by the party in power here. I advise officials of the government, but I also advise federal officials and I think I can be most helpful to everyone -- including the public -- by giving objective, truthful information. I will also take issue with many positions of the PPD but what I say will not be said out of any bias. I have a high regard for some of its new leaders.

My basic perspective is that the status of Puerto Rico ought to be the choice of Puerto Ricans’ among all of the options. The U.S., which took Puerto Rico without the consent of the people, has an obligation to identify the options -- including the options that would provide a democratic form of government at the national government level.

Puerto Ricans have not determined what they want at least in part because of a local dispute about what the options are. In the absence of clarity from the U.S., Puerto Ricans have also made status proposals that the U.S. could or would not implement.

The only time that status choice was really made was in 1967 when there was a majority for a “Commonwealth” proposal different than the current arrangement. The U.S. rejected it. Status was not the issue in the 1950 and ’52 referenda. And referenda in 1993 and 1998 did not produce clear majorities for any proposal, although there was substantial support for “Commonwealth” proposals that the U.S. would not implement.

Actions by the U.S. Government in the early years after Puerto Rico was acquired created doubt here on whether statehood was an option. Statements by some U.S officials during the middle of the last century created doubt on whether independence was an option.

Nationhood is an option for an area that has not been incorporated into the U.S. Statehood is an option for a substantially populated, economically developed territory of U.S. citizens since 1917 who have contributed so much to the nation. Either would be granted now if sought by Puerto Ricans.

The current status cannot provide equal voting representation in the government that makes Puerto Rico’s national laws. Because of this, it cannot be considered Puerto Rico’s ultimate status even if it last a long time more.
But it is an option because: it was established by the Government of the U.S.; a new status ought to represent a genuine majority aspiration of Puerto Ricans; and the U.S. does not feel a compelling reason to end a status that it will maintain for other areas.

There are business arguments for the status quo vs. the democracy, equality, and equality arguments for the alternatives. (The cultural incompatibility arguments are mostly bogus in the country that the U.S. is becoming.) But, if Puerto Ricans are to have a status that is not fully democratic, it ought to be their informed choice, not the result of a failure of the U.S. to enable them to choose.

Last but not least, the question of Puerto Rico’s ultimate status is the fundamental issue of the islands. It raises questions about the appropriate federal economic and social policies. And it distracts attention from important economic and social problems.

A process to resolve the issue might not result in a majority choice now, or for a long time, but it ought to be established.

The bill in Congress, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, H.R. 2499, would authorize -- but not require -- Puerto Rico to hold plebiscites at least every eight years to determine whether local voters and other citizens born in Puerto Rico want the current status and relationship with the U.S. to continue or want a different status. The intent is that the current status would continue if, and for as long as, Puerto Ricans vote for it. If at some point they vote for a different status, a plebiscite among all of the alternatives that have any support would be authorized -- independence, national sovereignty in association with the U.S., and statehood. The President and Members of Congress would be advised of results. That is all that the bill would do.

The President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status under President Bush initially proposed the process. But it actually had its origins in a proposal of the PIP that was adopted in 2005 by the Legislative Assembly with the votes of all members -- including those of the PPD.

When the Bush White House consulted me before proposing the process, I questioned whether a vote on the current status is really needed -- since all indications are that an overwhelming majority of the people want a different relationship with the U.S.: about half, statehood; a few percent, independence; about a fifth, nationhood in association with the U.S., and only about a quarter, the current status.

But the Bush White House found the tri-partisan agreement on a vote on the current status attractive. It saw threshold plebiscites on the current status as paying deference to the current status. The governor at the time defended the status in Washington and asserted that it was what the people wanted. The plebiscite would verify that. Alternatives would only be considered if there was a majority for replacing it.

There are two main PPD criticisms of the bill. One is that the process is unfair. Essentially, the argument is that all supporters of nationhood and statehood would vote for the different status option in the threshold plebiscite, it would get a majority, the current status would not be an option in the second-stage plebiscite, and a majority of the vote will be for statehood.

The argument is flawed. The 1998 referendum undermines the assertion that all supporters of nationhood and statehood would definitely vote for the different status option. In 1998, many independentistas and almost all followers of the PPD voted for none of the referendum’s options even though independence, nationhood in association with the U.S., and the status quo were on the ballot along with statehood. Under H.R. 2499, independentistas and advocates of nationhood in association with the U.S. might vote for the current status instead of an undefined different status concerned that the different status ultimately chosen might be statehood. Some statehooders also might not vote for an undefined different status, concerned about an ultimate choice of nationhood.

The related PPD argument is that the bill does not contain the option that the PPD wants. This contention is even more deficient. In addition to having the current status as an option, the bill includes a national sovereignty in association with the U.S. option. The PPD says that national sovereignty in association with the U.S. is what it really wants. (The current status is actually its fallback option.)

The PPD’s specific status proposal is actually a hybrid of aspects of territory status, nationhood, and statehood. It calls for Puerto Rico to be recognized as a nation but the U.S. to be permanently bound to it (which would mean that the U.S. would not really be a sovereign nation). Puerto Rico would have the powers to nullify the application of U.S. laws and U.S. court jurisdiction in most areas and to enter into international agreements that do not compromise U.S. security. The U.S. would be obligated to continue to grant all current programs assistance to Puerto Ricans and citizenship to persons born here. It would also be required to grant a new subsidy for the insular government, a replacement for incentives for U.S. investment in the islands, and continued free entry to products shipped from Puerto Rico (although by virtue of its international trade powers, Puerto Rico would be able to admit products that the U.S. restricts).

This proposal was found to be impossible for the U.S. for constitutional and basic policy reasons by the Justice and State Departments in the Clinton and Bush Administrations, the Congressional Research Service, the House committee of jurisdiction under Republicans and Democrats, and the bipartisan leadership of the Senate committee.

True nationhood in association with the U.S., however, is a real option, and the real option closest in nature to the PPD status proposal. It is more commonly called free association because the essential element is that either nation would be free to end the association. Determining international associations is an inherent attribute of national sovereignty. While all other terms are hypothetically subject to negotiation, in reality, the U.S. would not continue to grant citizenship based on birth in Puerto Rico and all current assistance in a nation of Puerto Rico.
The U.S. is in free association with three former territory areas in the Pacific. I am representing one, the Republic of Palau, in a required 15th anniversary review of the relationship. I delivered testimony to Congress on behalf of the Clinton Administration that free association with Puerto Rico ought to be at least as generous as that provided Palau and the other Micronesian states. But it is unrealistic to think that it would provide many benefits of a U.S. status along with most of the powers of nationhood.

In our Palau talks, U.S. representatives have rejected requests to restore eligibility for U.S. programs that applied in territory status, insisted upon decreasing aid, and want to impose passport requirements although Palauans have free access to the U.S.

There is also the PPD argument here that it has used since its founding regarding any status process that it did not initiate: Now is the time to concentrate on the islands’ economic and social problems instead.

Most of my time for Puerto Rico this year has been spent on economic and social legislation, lately mostly health insurance reform. Resident Commissioner Pierluisi, Governor Fortuno, and others, including Speaker Gonzalez, have been doing very well in efforts to obtain benefits for Puerto Ricans with the help of a few congressional leaders -- better than I would have expected without the White House acting yet on the President’s pledges to Puerto Ricans. But it is exceedingly difficult and Puerto Rico is being treated far from equally. In some cases, a minority of relatively affluent Puerto Ricans not paying tax on local income is the reason given. But in more, it is cost. Relatively needy communities in the States, however, generally receive more aid, not less.

No one involved in these efforts can fail to reach the conclusion that Puerto Rico is severely handicapped by not having votes in the Congress and in the election of the president as well as by starting out by being treated differently than almost all of the rest of the country. This is not a commercial for statehood. Instead, it is an argument for a choice of whether Puerto Rico wants some kind of empowerment, within the U.S. system through statehood or on a national basis, which would open other avenues of addressing Puerto Rico’s economic needs. Even the PPD’s proposals for economic growth -- trade autonomy, exemptions from U.S. regulatory laws -- really require a new status. But, again, the choice of what status or any new status should be Puerto Ricans’.

174 Members of the House have joined Resident Commissioner Pierluisi in sponsoring the Puerto Rico Democracy Act -- more than any previous bill on the issue and not too many less than the 218 votes needed to pass a bill. Almost two-thirds are members of the Democratic majority. The Committee on Natural Resources approved the bill 30-8 -- after defeating two amendments that represent the main strategies of opponents.

One was to require that English be the official language of a State of Puerto Rico and all of the State business be conducted in English.

In its efforts to block the bill, the PPD has continued to work with groups that advocate that English be made the official language of the U.S. (which, by the way, would also make English the official language of Puerto Rico under the current status). The amendment was defeated 24-13.

An amendment to require a two-thirds vote for a different status to authorize a plebiscite on the options for a different status and state that Congress should not act on a less than a two-thirds vote for an alternative to the current status was defeated by voice vote.

The question now is whether the bill will be brought before the full House. A bill only providing for a plebiscite between the current status and seeking one of the alternatives sponsored by Representative Serrano, then Resident Commissioner Fortuno, and 128 other Members was not brought to the Floor last Congress by Speaker Pelosi because of the opposition of a couple of Members, principally Small Business Committee Chair Velazquez. Her opposition is even more potent now as Hispanic Caucus Chair, although a majority of the Caucus has sponsored this year’s bill in contrast to last Congress’.

Also calling the bill into question this Congress is the silence of the Obama Administration, which has not appreciated the fundamental nature of the status issue and wants to avoid the controversy between its supporters in favor and opposed.

The chances of a full House vote have been boosted by the co-sponsorship, the strong Committee votes -- including the defeats of English language and supermajority amendments expected in the full House. But perhaps most helpful is the support of the Speaker’s closest advisor, former Natural Resources Committee Chairman George Miller. He had preferred that the status choice be made in a one-stage vote among all the options, but who has concluded that the bill is fair and is an advocate now.

A backdrop for the conclusion is that the positions of Puerto Rico’s major parties on the process was clear in the last election and, while there were other issues, there was a decisive result.

I get the sense that the PPD expects the bill to pass the House and its real strategy for blocking it will be in the Senate -- although it will try to bloody the bill in the House. It hopes that Senator Menendez and right-wing Republicans will succeed in the Senate where a three-fifths majority is required if there is determined opposition and where a lack of Administration support could be a greater hindrance than in the House (although an Administration position is standard procedure before House consideration).

The democratic and fair way of advancing concerns about bills is to offer amendments, alternative bills, or to vote against bills. The PPD can propose the status it wants or it can again propose recognition that Puerto Rico could have convention to choose among status proposals including the governing arrangement it wants. It could also urge votes against the bill. It and its few supporters have, instead, opted for trying to block letting the Congress and the people vote. This is a cowardly attempt to assert tyranny by a minority.

If majorities in the Congress are willing to authorize Puerto Ricans to vote, shouldn’t votes be authorized? If a majority of Puerto Ricans want one of the alternatives to the current status, shouldn’t that be determined?

There are advantages and disadvantages to the current status -- just as there are to all of the alternatives. The PPD should campaign on the advantages and disadvantages to all and let the people decide.

The bill is not the one that I would have proposed. But I can support any choice of Puerto Ricans on a real option or among real options. Choices in government -- and life -- are among the available alternatives, and decisions should be made about whether a possibility is better or worse. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Thank you.

Letter of Ted Kennedy to President Obama in his final days

2009-09-10T06:27:00.000-07:00

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_______________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 9, 2009

Below is the text of the letter from Senator Edward M. Kennedy referenced by the President in tonight’s address to a Joint Session of Congress.

May 12, 2009

Dear Mr. President,

I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me – and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.

On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.

You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.

When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the President who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me-and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.

There will be struggles – there always have been – and they are already underway again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat - that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.

And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family’s health will never again depend on the amount of a family’s wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will – yes, we will – fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.

In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign- and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young President who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young President inspires another generation and once more on America’s behalf inspires the entire world.

So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend- and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.

At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.

And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

With deep respect and abiding affection,

Ted

All eyes on Speaker Pelosi

2009-07-27T18:18:00.000-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo Rodriguez
Various days ago, I had a conversation with a good friend with whom I consistently exchange viewpoints on the everyday issues of Puerto Rico and our nation. We discussed local and national politics, formed opinions on President Obama’s Health Care Reform Crusade and Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortuno’s economic public policy on the island to confront the worldwide financial crisis. As usual, sooner or later, the topic of Puerto Rico’s political status dilemma resurfaced and once again we found ourselves analyzing the current situation of the island’s political status debate and its discussion in US Congress.

As open self determination supporters, we expressed how frustrating it was to watch HR 900 The Puerto Rico Democracy Act die in the past 110th Congress. Hundreds of emails, letters and educational videos were not enough for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ultimately decide to bring HR 900 down for a House floor vote. Not to mention over 120 Co Sponsors among her fellow members of Congress who supported the bill and openly requested a floor vote, including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Nonetheless, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives did not budge, adding fuel to allegations of her loyalty to the local Status Quo Party on the island which promotes Puerto Rico to remain as a US territory and preserving its colonial nature within the United States. “In order to solve Puerto Rico’s political status issue, there must be consensus from the people of Puerto Rico, in order for legislative action to be taken by this Congress”, expressed Pelosi back in 2007.

Two years have gone by, and not surprisingly, history does seem to repeat itself. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act was once again filed in the new 111th Congress, under Bill number HR 2499, by Puerto Rico’s newly elected non voting member of Congress, Pedro Pierluisi. As of today, the Bill enjoys the support of over 161 Co Sponsor in Congress. Sounds like consensus to me! Yet once again we observe the opponents and non facilitators of democracy moving their pawns with the sole historical and consistent objective of obstructing any self determination process that would give the 4 million American citizens a federal endorsed and final say on their political relation with the rest of our nation. It is indeed grotesque to watch how these individuals, social groups and even a minority of members of Congress lobby to deny the American citizens of Puerto Rico that opportunity.

“A constitutional convention should be held in Puerto Rico to attend the island’s political status issue”, says New York Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez. Congresswoman Velazquez has stated that a group of political and civic leaders on the island should meet and decide the future political fate of Puerto Rico and not the people of Puerto Rico. Velazquez takes pride in expressing her die hard motivation and vocation to serving the less fortunate, the needy and the voiceless under our beloved Democratic Party, most famously known as “The Party of the PEOPLE”.

Yet, with her consistent and instrumental obstructive influence on this issue, she almost seems as though she has jumped party lines and acts as if she was a Republican, at least on this issue! I mean, last time I checked, it is the Republican Party that prefers to put important and critical decisions in the hands of the priveleged and powerful or as President Bush so arrogantly stated in 2003, “the nation’s elite”. The voice of the people is what has defined our Democratic Party for decades, having maximized this vision during the 1960’s civil rights movement.

Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois has also expressed his shared support with Nydia Velazquez in stopping the voice of island Puerto Ricans to be heard. Some say, these members of Congress have leverage when it comes to the political status debate of Puerto Rico. Some even interpret their expressions as ones that are reflective of the will and desire of the people on the island. And yet, they are hardly seen on the island, with exception of sporadic trips made to raise funds for their campaigns. Having lived, in Congressman Gutierrez’s case, their entire lives in the continental United States, today they create the perception in Congress that not only are they the voice of their respective constituents in New York and Illinois, but of the people of Puerto Rico as well. This notion is entirely false and is geared and designed in coordination with the local Status Quo Party to kill any self determination mechanism for Puerto Rico in Congress.

If we look for a clearer example or solid evidence of my allegation of partial and unobjective views by them on this issue, we need look no further than the tenure of Nydia Velazquez as the New York Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Director under former Puerto Rico Governor Rafael Hernandez Colon. Guess what party banner Hernandez Colon ran under. That’s right, it’s too easy, the local Status Quo Party. Velazquez used the bully pulpit of her office to prepare her run for Congress. Most probably a strategy carefully crafted by Governor Hernandez Colon and the Status Quo Party to insert one of their own in Congress and put a halt to an already anticipated and growing pro statehood movement on the island.

Now she represents a mainland congressional district as a VOTING representative. Yup, the same person that believes Puerto Ricans should continue to have a NON VOTING member in Congress and should not vote for the President. Hypocrisy? Maybe… Contradicting? Without a doubt. A doctorate in political science is not required to conclude the agendas of the above mentioned members of Congress who despite of proudly preaching their Puerto Rican pride on stages and at political rallies, today they turn their backs on their own people.

Today, Nydia Velazquez and Luis Gutierrez advise our President Barack Obama on Hispanic issues and have already mentioned that HR 2499 The Puerto Rico Democracy Act is NOT a priority for this 111th Congress. They seem to forget or purposely avoid remembering the historical landslide the Pro Statehood Party in Puerto Rico obtained during the past November elections. Over 1 million 25 thousand Puerto Ricans voted for the party, representing 54 % of the electorate. Such a large margin of victory had not been reached for almost half a century.

Also known as the “New Progressive Party”, the political organization took control of practically all elective positions within the local government, having won the Governorship, Non voting Congressional seat, all state Senate districts, super majority in the House, and a vast majority of the municipalities as well. And most recently, newly elected pro Statehood Governor Luis Fortuno appointed three new members to the local Supreme Court who appear to share the Governor’s vision in regards to Puerto Rico’s political status discussion. I’m no expert on election day results and analysis but I believe it’s safe to say there was a very clear and solid mandate sent to US Congress by the people of Puerto Rico.

Therefore, and in summary. All the eyes of our nation, if not the world, will be on Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the next 3 years. Will our Speaker decide to do the right thing and bring down HR 2499 down for a vote like she has insurmountable times on issues pertaining to injustice and inequality of American citizens? Will she and our President choose to listen to 2 Puerto Rican members of Congress who have openly exposed their agendas or will they in turn listen to the PEOPLE, the millions of American citizens of Puerto Rico who sent a crystal clear message to Washington,DC on November 4th, 2008?

I bet all my marbles that our Party’s leadership and our President will make good on our Democratic Party’s legacy and as Robert Kennedy once expressed at a civil rights rally during the 1960’s.......

“ We will not stand by or be aloof. We will move".......

President Obama's Primetime Press Conference on Health Reform

2009-07-25T05:00:00.000-07:00

President Obama delivers remarks at a primetime press conference focused on health insurance reform, before taking questions from the media. The President explains how his plan will benefit every American, and where the plan currently stands. July 22, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor LULAC Rally Speech of Secretary Kenneth McClintock!

2009-07-17T10:48:00.000-07:00

Sonia Sotomayor LULAC Rally keynote address

By Kenneth D. McClintock

Secretary of State

United States Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Madame President, Mrs. Zoraida Fonalledas, former Senator José Garriga-Picó…Someone just announced that Sonia Sotomayor’s family members are running late. Actually, today, we are all Sonia Sotomayor’s family, whether we live in Barrio San Antonio in Aguadilla or the city of San Antonio in the state of Texas---Somos Familia!

496 years after Puerto Rico’s first Governor, Juan Ponce de León, reached the shores of La Florida to become the first European to discover what would once become the continental United States and had been discovered by Native Americans long before…233 years after 56 men risked their “vidas” and their “haciendas” to declare that Britain’s colonies in America, which included citizens who still spoke Dutch, German, Spanish and French better than they spoke English, citizens who practiced different religions, and citizens who lived in distinct agricultural, urban or industrial communities, would thereafter be a separate nation defined, not by geography, or language, or climate, or religion but by common values set forth in a Declaration of Independence…

222 years after those 13 former colonies agreed to establish a common national government, a republic with three separate and equal branches that would bring stability to the post-colonial experiment begun eleven years before…164 years after the United States of America began annexing lands populated by Hispanos…Seven-score and six years after that nation abolished slavery in the midst of the bloodiest and most painful of wars, a civil war…

111 years after that nation added and retained a Spanish-speaking territory, Puerto Rico…

97 years after our nation has at least six states it names in Spanish---California, Colorado, Florida, Montana, Nevada and Nuevo México,…48 years after a President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, appointed Reynaldo Garza as the first Hispanic Federal District Court Judge...

30 years after another President, Jimmy Carter, made Judge Garza the first Hispanic to sit as a Federal Circuit Court Judge28 years after President Ronald Reagan appointed the first female member of the United States Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor…President Barack Obama, the first man of color in the Oval Office, has appointed the third female, and first Hispanic, to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor…

As a puertorriqueño I feel a great pride, un gran orgullo, that Puerto Rican blood flows through Sonia Sotomayor’s veins, the same blood that Puerto Ricans have shed for our nation in every war from the First World War to Afghanistan.As residents of the Bronx or citizens of New York, many of you feel the same orgullo that Sonia was born in your borough, in your city and in your state.As Hispanos, whether we live in East L.A., toil the fields in Idaho, live near the border in Tejas, Nuevo Méjico or Arizona, whether we hail from México, Cuba, Sur América, Centroamérica or el Caribe, we should all feel proud that one of our own has finally been selected to sit in the highest court of the land.

She is Hispana, but will not judge us as a Hispanic. She is Puerto Rican, but she will not be there to decide on the basis of any particular Puerto Rican perspective. She is a New Yorker, that state of so many colors, religions and cultures, but she’s not there to favor her home state. She is a woman, but she’s not there to tilt the balance in favor of her gender.Sonia Sotomayor is an American and she’s going to America’s Supreme Court to follow America’s Constitution, to look after the rights of every American, whether black or white, Latino or Oriental, male or female, Christian or Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist, straight or gay, Democrat or Republican.There are still a few fellow Americans that can’t get used to the idea that while all men and women are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we are all equal but can never be exactly the same.

For 34 years, only older people sat on the Supreme Court until President Madison appointed 32-year old Joseph Story to sit among justices many years his senior.For nearly 190 years, only white men sat on the Supreme Court, until Thurgood Marshall stepped away from the plaintiff’s lectern and rose to sit on the bench as the first of two African-American justices.

For nearly 200 years, only men, white or black, sat on our highest Bench, until Sandra Day O’Connor broke the gender barrier.This year, 222 years after our Constitution was drafted, Sonia Sotomayor is poised to become our 111th American, the third woman and the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court of this nation.A nation of over 311 million people, over 150 million of which are women, and over 50 million of which are Hispanics.Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee, a committee composed of 12 Democrats and 7 Republicans, 17 men and only 2 women, and none of the Senate’s two Hispanics, begins hearings on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.Today, the rubber meets the road. For months, opposition research has scrutinized every breath she’s taken, every document she’s written, every thought that has crossed her mind and they’ve found zilch, nothing, ¡nada!

Today, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee can begin to unify this nation, proudly assuring this nation, Hispanics and non-Hispanics alike, that Sonia Sotomayor is qualified to sit where John Marshall, Thurgood Marshall, Franfurter, Earl Warren and Sandra Day O’Connor have sat.Today, each member of that Judiciary Committee has to choose between using this confirmation process to divide a nation that needs no more division or turn this into an opportunity to help this nation mature, grow and become more united.

Today, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have the golden opportunity to restate that all Men and Women are created equal and that we are all endowed with certain unalienable rights, that Sonia Sotomayor’s life has been devoted to protect the liberty of all Americans in their pursuit of happiness, regardless of race, color, creed or ethnic background.

¡Que viva Sonia Sotomayor!And may God bless America and all Americans, from Alaska to the Virgin Islands, from Maine to Guam, including Hispanic American leaders meeting here today in America’s Shining Star in the Caribbean, Puerto Rico.

Obama's First Time on Air Force One

2009-02-17T14:03:00.001-08:00

Click on the video to access and view President Barack Obama's first time aboard Air Force One. A truly moving audiovisual piece!

DC VOTE ACT PASSES SENATE COMMITTEE BY HUGE MARGIN!

2009-02-12T13:30:00.000-08:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

The DC Voting Act that would facilitate the District of Columbia with the morally and deserving full representation in Congress has passed with an overwhelming support of votes within Senate Committee that would give District of Columbia residents their first-ever voting member of Congress and add a seat for Utah. The only member of the Committee that voted against this measure was the one and only John McCain, which confirms the theory mentioned by residents of Puerto Rico and DC during the past presidential campaign which assured that if elected President, John McCain would never have been a friend for DC representation rights, much less Puerto Rico voting and representation rights!

The district of Columbia is on the verge of making history by becoming the first American jurisdiction with full fledged voting and representation rights despite of NOT being a state. Once again, the Democratic Party has begun to demonstrate that when our nation is confronted with issues such as adequate DC representation, doing the right thing weighs in far more than political or bureaucratic obstacles and concerns. Our Democratic Congress has immediately sent a message that this new administration will be one of inclusiveness of all American citizens and not a nation of exclusion that hurts our international image worldwide.

The passing of this Bill on the Senate floor is all that is left for our nation to take the next big step in our history, and would open the door for the four million American citizens of Puerto Rico to rightfully claim equal voting and represenation rights as well. Puerto Rico, like Washington, DC has one non voting member of the House of Representatives, yet counts with over four million citizens which in turn means the island would have over 6 members to the House and 2 Senators if it were to become a state.

President Barack Obama shouted , "Change has come to America!", the day he captured the Presidency. According to the Democratic House and Senate's actions in regards to this issue today ,we now see that " change in America " is very real and is here to stay! Write your member of Congress and Senators today to help garner the 60 filibuster proof Senate votes to make this change a reality!

English Only provision defeated in Tennessee!

2009-01-26T11:37:00.000-08:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

Nashville, Tennessee voters rejected a proposal to make English the mandatory language for all government business, easing fears that the measure could damage the city's reputation in regards to the exclusion of minorities and rejection of government services of all who do not speak english.

The proposed provision expressed, “English is the official language of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Official actions which bind or commit the government shall be taken only in the English language, and all official government communications and publications shall be in English. No person shall have a right to government services in any other language. All meetings of the Metro Council, Boards, and Commissions of the Metropolitan Government shall be conducted in English. The Metro Council may make specific exceptions to protect public health and safety. Nothing in this measure shall be interpreted to conflict with federal or state law."

With 100 percent of precincts reporting early , unofficial results showed the "English First" proposal losing with about 57 percent of voters against it and 43 percent in support.

The city would have become the nation's largest to pass such a measure. Similar measures have passed elsewhere, though business leaders, academics, the city's mayor and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen opposed the "English First" proposal, which the governor has previously called "mean-spirited."

"The results of this special election reaffirms Nashville's identity as a welcoming and friendly city, and our ability to come together as a community," Mayor Karl Dean expressed shortly afterwards.

The referendum's leader, city Councilman Eric Crafton, had promoted it as a way to prevent expensive translation services.

"I support the collective wisdom of the voters. I am not going to bring English up again because the people of Nashville have spoken," Crafton said during a phone interview late Thursday.

The change that has risen in America in recent days has been so impacting and vivid that even the most conservative of states such as Tennessee are now evolving and accepting diversity as a pillar of our system of government. It almost seems as though a New Nashville has appeared!

"Old Nashville" is deeply Southern, conservative, fundamentalist Protestant and provincial. "New Nashville" is made up of largely progressive, and open-minded citizens. After taking a glimpse of the 2008 electoral college map, one will discover that it is not just Nasville , Tennessee , but the entire nation who seems to have become progressive and open minded!

Surprisingly, this truly historical event was never published or covered by the local Puerto Rico TV and written press. Our nation proved once again that it rejects any type of anti diversity or discriminatory agenda geared towards minorities in America. Historically, a similar process was carried out in regards to Puerto Rico's official language under the administrations of Governors Rafael Hernandez Colon and Pedro Rossello. Under Governor Hernandez Colon's administration Spanish was pushed to become the one and only official language of the United States territory. Later, during Governor Pedro Rossello's administration, English and Spanish were declared the dual official languages of the island. As a matter of fact, Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Illinois attempted to amend the 1998 United States -Puerto Rico Political Status Act or HR 856 with a legislative "poison pill" by declaring spanish the official language of Puerto Rico. The amendment failed by recorded vote: 13 - 406, in the 105th Congress.

For years, those who oppose Puerto Rico to become the 51st state of the union have utilized weak and superficial arguments against any type of federally endorsed self determination process that would end the island's colonial and territorial current political status. Among the arguments utilized was the notion of the island's inability to become a state due to the great deal of American citizens of the island who do not speak english. Not only did this argument demonstrate extreme ignorance, yet it completely fails to acknowlege what are nation truly stands for. They seem to forget that America was founded by immigrants who professed the importance of diversity, brotherhood and unity. They seem to forget the fact that thousands, if not millions of people of diverse ethnical and cultural backrounds have been instrumental throughout the decades in shaping what are nation represents today.

Those who challenge or defer with my previous statement would only have to look at who is now our 44th President of the United States of America in order to come to grips with a reality check. The truth is that America has evolved into an even greater democratic nation. Sure, we have made some mistakes along the way, like having entrusted the path of our country's future in the hands of the past administration's wrong and uninformed domestic and foreign policy decisions. Nonetheless, it is the consistent perseverance and resolve of our hard working, multicultural and multilingual nation that guarantees time and time again that our United States of America and all that it stands for, remain intact for generations to come. Change has come to America! Let us all work together to embrace and bring this message to every corner of this great land of ours, including the enchanted island of Puerto Rico.

Renewed Effort for Puerto Rican Statehood May Involve Christensen

2008-12-23T17:58:00.000-08:00

by Ananta Pancham

St. Thomas Source

Dec. 22, 2008 -- Looking to put the decades-old issue of status to bed once and for all, representatives of Puerto Rico's pro-statehood party are turning to the federal government for a push in the right direction -- and the fate of their attempts might just rest on V.I. Delegate Donna M. Christensen.

In late 2007, HR 900 -- sponsored by New Jersey Rep. Jose Serrano and dubbed the Puerto Rico Democracy Act -- made it through the House's Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, which Christensen chairs, but has not been voted on by the House or U.S. Senate. Still, one Puerto Rico official says the bill, which calls for a federally mandated referendum, is not dead in the water just yet.

Bolstered by support from Puerto Rico's governor-elect Luis G. Fortuno, the bill will resurface once the nation's economy is more stable, and could possibly make its way back into Congress and Christensen's hands.
Though she is unsure whether she will continue to sit at the helm of the Insular Affairs Subcommittee when Congress reconvenes next year, Christen said the issue of status has always been an important one for Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands, both unincorporated U.S. territories.

"I think the people of the territory should continue to track the progress of this proposal as it makes its way through the House," she said during a recent interview. "It might give us some ideas, and help us decide what we want to do as the question of status keeps coming up."

Congress's stamp of approval on Puerto Rico's referendum proposal could have some positive effects for the Virgin Islands, according to Puerto Rico Sen. Kenneth McClintock, recently on St. Thomas for a government conference.

"When the (federal) government passes a new economic-stimulus package, there could be some Office of Management and Budget-sponsored proposals in there that could go under the radar, and impact both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands," he said. "For example, the rum tax cover over that the territories benefit from -- that should be approved automatically, but it isn't, so we'll be able to keep a closer eye on that."

Much like the Virgin Islands, issues such as voting rights and citizenship are also concerns for the citizens of Puerto Rico, McClintock said.

"If we were to become a state, we would cease being participants in the military affairs of the nation without being able to participate in the election of the commander in chief," he said. "We would also get automatic equal protection in all federal benefits, like Medicaid, which we have been struggling with."
Puerto Rico has sent more "active-duty forces" to the Middle East on a per-capita basis than all the U.S. states -- except Nevada -- put together, according to an article in the International Herald Tribune.

Puerto Rico's congressional representatives could also help to pull Virgin Islands' issues to the forefront, McClintock said.

"We would suddenly have two U.S. senators and six U.S. representatives who would know what being part of a territory is all about," he added. "Those persons clearly comprehend what it's like to be a second-class citizen, and would therefore be more amendable to territorial issues."

The support for the bill is there, and continues to build not only on the local level, but on the national level as well, McClintock said. The first step in that process began with the drafting and approval of the territory's constitution, which showed that an island with "funny names, a funny language and funny-looking people" was able to take on Congress, he said.

This year, the Democratic Party's official platform -- dubbed "Renewing America's Promise" -- pledged the support of the White House and Congress to "work with all groups in Puerto Rico to enable the question of Puerto Rico's status to be resolved in the next four years."

Though local referendums held in 1967, 1993 and 1998 showed the Puerto Rican public favored maintaining the territory's commonwealth status, Fortuno's election and a recent poll taken by members of Puerto Rico's New Progressive Party shows a 15-percent increase in support for a federally mandated referendum, according to McClintock.

"So, the logical question is, why don't we experiment with it to see if it works?" he said.

Recent stats also show about a 10-percent increase in the number of voters leaning toward statehood -- as opposed to the 46 to 48 percent of citizens who supported the idea during the referendums, McClintock said.

"This definitely suggests that things are getting better for us," he said. "Don't worry -- we're not going to lose our language. With the millions of Hispanics living in the U.S. -- including the four million in Puerto Rico -- it's just not possible."

But before a new bill gets introduced -- and McClintock says there's no set timeline for when that will happen -- Puerto Rico's government also has some housekeeping to do, including balancing its budget and making sure the territory staves off any further economic downturn.

"Seven out of the past eight years we've had a budget deficit, despite the fact that our constitution strictly prohibits it," McClintock said. "Our outgoing administration recently spent over $10 billion, even though we were only collecting about $7.5 billion in revenues."

While it's no easy task, as soon as the territory gets itself on better financial footing, it will be time to get back to Washington and lobby for the referendum proposal.

"We have to really dig ourselves out of the hole in the next couple of years, so we can get this proposal passed as soon as we can," McClintock said. "We're ready to go up and lobby, and in the meantime, we're trying to maintain excellent relationships with all the players involved, like Delegate Christensen. And we will be sitting down with her in 2009 when the new legislation is drafted and sponsored."

Back Talk Share your reaction to this news with other Source readers. Please include headline, your name and city and state/country or island where you reside.

Caroline Kennedy for U.S. Senate?

2008-12-20T16:56:00.000-08:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

As a result of Senator Hillary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State by President Elect Barack Obama, an array of rumors and potential candidates have risen to fill the New York senate seat left vacant by Clinton. The loudest name being mentioned is Caroline Kennedy, daughter of former President John F. Kennedy, who apparently is the frontrunner among all possible candidates to occupy one of New York's senate seats. If appointed by New York Governor Patterson, she will still have to campaign in 2010 in order to be elected. Caroline has lived a great deal of her adult life out of the political and public spotlight but has now taken center stage after revealing her intention of running for the same senate seat that her uncle, Robert Kennedy, held during the mid sixties.

Caroline Kennedy is an American author and attorney. She is the daughter and only surviving child of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. was born in New York City and is named after her maternal aunt Caroline Lee Radziwill and a maternal great-grandmother. An older sister was stillborn in 1956.

Her brother John Jr. was born in November 1960 and died in a plane crash along with his wife and sister-in-law in July 1999. Another brother, Patrick, died of a lung ailment two days after his birth in August of 1963. She lived in the Washington, D.C. neighborhood of Georgetown until a few months after her third birthday, when her family moved into the White House after her father's inauguration as President of the United States in 1961.

At the White House, she attended kindergarten in classes organized by her mother and was often photographed riding her pony Macaroni around the grounds of the White House. Vice President Lyndon Johnson also gave her a Yucatan pony named Tex. A photo of a young Caroline with Macaroni in a news article inspired singer-songwriter Neil Diamond to write his hit song "Sweet Caroline," a fact he revealed only when performing it for her 50th birthday in November 2007.

Historians described Caroline's young personality as "a trifle remote and a bit shy at times" yet "remarkably unspoiled. "She's too young to realize all these luxuries," Rose Kennedy said of Caroline. "She probably thinks it's natural for children to go off in their own airplanes. But she is with her cousins, and some of them dance and swim better than she. They do not allow her to take special precedence. Little children accept things."

The day of her father's death, nanny Maude Shaw took Caroline and John Jr. from the White House (who at the time, had not been told of the incident) to the house of their maternal grandmother, Janet Lee Bouvier. Bouvier insisted that Shaw be the one to tell Caroline. That evening, the children were brought back to the White House, and with Caroline in bed, Shaw broke the news to her.

In late November 1963, Jacqueline Kennedy moved her family out of the White House, back to Georgetown. However, their home soon became a popular tourist attraction in Washington, and they moved to New York City in mid-1964 where they lived in a penthouse apartment on Fifth Avenue, on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where Caroline attended the Brearley School and Convent of the Sacred Heart.

In May 1967, she and her mother christened the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy in a widely publicized ceremony in Newport News, Virginia. In 1975, she was visiting London to complete a nine-month art course at the Sotheby's auction house.

On Sunday, January 27, 2008, Kennedy announced in a New York Times op-ed piece entitled, "A President Like My Father," that she would endorse Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Her concluding lines were: "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans." This was the first time she had endorsed a presidential candidate other than when she endorsed her uncle, Ted Kennedy, in 1980.

Kennedy spoke during the first night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, on August 25, 2008, introducing her uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy.

On June 4, 2008, Obama named Caroline Kennedy, along with Jim Johnson and Eric Holder, to co-chair his Vice Presidential Search Committee. On August 19, 2008, filmmaker Michael Moore called on Caroline Kennedy to "Pull a Cheney" (as in Dick Cheney who headed President George W. Bush's vice presidential vetting committee in 2000), and name herself as Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate. On August 23, 2008, Obama announced that Senator Joe Biden of Delaware would be his running mate. Kennedy addressed the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, introducing a tribute film about her uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy.

She received her A.B. from Radcliffe College at Harvard University in 1979 and her J.D. from Columbia Law School in 1988, after graduating from Concord Academy in Massachusetts in 1975.

Letter of the Editor to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

2008-11-20T07:11:00.000-08:00

November 19th, 2008

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232 US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

Receive a warm greeting on my behalf and a congratulatory note as well for our Democratic victory on November 4th, 2008. The purpose of this communication is to clarify false impressins created by the letter sent by Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila to your office on November 18th, 2008 related to the island’s general election results. Governor Acevedo Vila has expressed that the Puerto Rico general election results, where the Pro Statehood Party won by the biggest landslide since 1964, did not represent a mandate by the people of the island in favor of statehood.

What the Governor fails to indicate is that rather than favor a specific status option, the people did in fact vote against Acevedo’s undemocratic “constitutional assembly” mechanism, and in favor of the Pro Statehood Party’s plebiscite/referendum mechanism of self determination, clearly proposed through HR 900, The Puerto Rico Democracy Act filed by Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuno and Congressman Jose Serrano; said legislation proposed that Puerto Rico’s political status dilemma would be solved once and for all through a series of federally endorsed self determination plebiscites.

The first vote would ask the Puerto Rican people directly via direct vote if they wish to continue with the island’s current political status or if they wish to pursue a change in the island’s political status. In case the people of Puerto Rico vote in favor of change, then a second plebiscite would be held in where Puerto Ricans would choose between independence or the admittance of Puerto Rico as the fifty first state of the union.

Anibal Acevedo Vila in turn supported another self determination process through a proposed Constitutional Assembly, where a select group of politicians and civic leaders would ultimately decide Puerto Rico’s final status and not the people. He also fails to mention that he in fact did include the political status debate in his campaign for re-election by consistently and aggressively promoting the Constitutional Assembly proposal and calling for a sovereign Puerto Rico with the ability to negotiate unilaterally with other nations.

Such a proposal was deemed unconstitutional in the past by US Congress and was ultimately and massively rejected by the people of Puerto Rico on November 4th, 2008 where the Pro Commonwealth Party that Mr. Acevedo Vila presided received the largest defeat in its history.

The self determination process mechanism proposed by the Pro Statehood Party was included in the party’s platform and was supported by a historical one million fourteen thousand Puerto Ricans ( 53% to 41%) who voted for the Pro Statehood Party on election day, having won the Governorship , House, Senate, Resident Commissioner seat in Congress and the vast majority of municipalities as well.

The fact of the matter is that the people of Puerto Rico did express a mandate of change on Election Day and simultaneously endorsed the Pro Statehood Party’s proposed mechanism to solve the island’s century old political dilemma consistent with the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status created by President Bill Clinton. Mr. Acevedo Vila’s misleading arguments are geared towards his agenda to obstruct any self determination process that would give the people of Puerto Rico a direct vote in regards to their political status preference.

On another note, as a Young Puerto Rican Democrat I am deeply concerned for the continued well being and image of our Democratic Party in Puerto Rico. On March 27, 2008, Acevedo Vilá was formally indicted on 24 counts of public corruption by a Federal Grand Jury along with 12 other people. The 13 are accused of running a conspiracy to illegally raise money to pay off Acevedo Vilá's campaign debts in 2000. On August 19, 2008, a second five count federal Grand Jury indictment was filed.

The people of Puerto Rico have spoken and it is the democratic and moral obligation of all of us to follow the clear, historical and unequivocal mandate bestowed by the American citizens of Puerto Rico. I am confident that US Congress and the White House will once again work with the people of Puerto Rico in order to finally reach a solution to the island’s political status dilemma.

Sincerely,

Phillip Arroyo
National Committeeman
Young Democrats of America
Puerto Rico Chapter

Senator McClintock appointed Secretary of State of Puerto Rico

2008-11-17T12:57:00.000-08:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

On November 11th, 2008, Puerto Rico Governor Elect Luis Fortuno appointed Senate President Kenneth McClintock as Secretary of State, which in Puerto Rico fulfulls the role of Lieutenant Governor. What began as a rumor two to three months ago has now become a reality; for Puerto Rico now has a new Secretary of State that in the eyes of many is more than qualified for the position. Senator Kenneth McClintock has a vast resume in public service and was even mentioned as a potential running mate for now Governor Elect Luis Fortuno in the 2008 general elections.

Among the Senator’s credentials are having co-chaired Hillary Clinton's successful Puerto Rico primary campaign, he graduated from University High School (UHS) in Río Piedras, Puerto Rico in 1974, where he served as student council president, studied at the University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras School of Business Administration, and in 1980 obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana.

While in college, McClintock, along with Puerto Rico's current congressional delegate Luis Fortuño and Governor Elect, founded the Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association, a student organization that contributed to the electoral victory of Carlos Romero Barceló in 1980. McClintock never took the bar, neither in Louisiana nor Puerto Rico, as his intention was not to be a practicing attorney, but a public servant. He began that public service career, before law school, as the staff director for the Puerto Rico House of Representatives Consumer Affairs Committee.

McClintock has, since his teenage years, been involved in politics in one way or another. At the age of 14, McClintock was appointed by President Richard Nixon as delegate to the White House Conference on Youth held from April 18-21, 1971. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In 1979 McClintock served as the first Puerto Rico Statehood Students Association President.

Secretary of State Elect Kenneth McClintock will undoubtedly continue make his case for political equality of Puerto Rico in the halls of Congress. The Pro Statehood Party on the island has just come off a historical landslide electoral victory on November 4th, 2008 in where over a million citizens voted in favor of the party’s return to power.

Now with absolute power bestowed upon by the people of Puerto Rico through the democratic electoral process, the Pro Statehood Party could appoint up to three new judges to the Puerto Rico State Supreme Court. This would mean that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court for the very first time in history could be composed of judges who possess an ideological preference leaning towards statehood.

Along with with Senator Hillary Clinton’s name being tossed into the pool of potential US Secretary of State candidates to be appointed by President Barack Obama, as well as her continuance as US Senator for New York is she decides to do so , may guarantee the level of priority the Puerto Rico political status issue will receive during President Obama’s administration. One thing is for sure, Secretary of State McClintock along with Puerto Rico Congressman Pedro Pierluisi and Governor Luis Fortuno will play a key role during the next four years in Puerto Rico’s century old quest for political self determination that may finally result in political, social and economic equality for the 4 million american citizens of Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico Governor Defeated

2008-11-06T08:17:00.000-08:00

Puerto Rico ousts indicted governor
By Associated Press

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Puerto Rico voted Tuesday to oust an incumbent governor who is under indictment for allegedly violating campaign finance laws, electing a challenger who vowed to fight crime and spur the island's troubled economy.
Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila conceded the election after Luis Fortuno of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party took a strong lead in early returns.

"I want to congratulate governor-elect Luis Fortuno," Acevedo said at the headquarters of his Popular Democratic Party. "It was a hard battle against all imaginable and unimaginable obstacles."

Fortuno had 53 percent of the vote to 41 percent for the governor with 42 percent of ballots counted.

The governor had urged islanders to support him despite a 24-count indictment charging him with wire fraud and other offenses for allegedly raising money illegally to pay off campaign debts from his terms as Puerto Rico's nonvoting delegate to Congress from 2000 to 2004.
He is scheduled to go on trial in February.

Acevedo's party favors maintaining Puerto Rico's semiautonomous relationship to the U.S. while Fortuno's wants the island to become the 51st state.

But the island's relationship to the U.S., a central theme in Puerto Rican politics, was not the main issue in this election. The vote was largely a referendum on the governor, who presided over the creation of an unpopular sales tax, increases in electricity and water rates and the unraveling of the local economy. Unemployment recently hit the highest level in years.
Fortuno, the island's delegate to Congress, or resident commissioner, had pledged to spur the economy and do more to reduce a homicide rate that is higher than much of the mainland U.S.

"The people tonight have said they are tired of the old-style politics and they want us to get to work to solve their problems," he said in a victory speech.

Voters on the island of 4 million people also were choosing a new delegate to the U.S. Congress as well as 27 local senators, 51 representatives and 78 mayors. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but do not vote in the U.S. presidential elections.

Pedro Pierluisi on the Campaign Trail!

2008-10-23T09:46:00.001-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

Ahead access the various videos of our next Democratic member of Congress that will represent the 4 million american citizens of Puerto Rico after the November 4th, 2008 elections in Puerto Rico. Mr. Pierluisi has campaigned intensely around the entire island in search of continued support for his candidacy for the island's sole non voting congressional seat in Congress. As of today, Pedro Pierluisi enjoys a huge 15 to 20 point advantage over his opponent according to the majority of polling results on the island. Stay tuned for more and access Pedro Pierluisi's official web page at www.pierluisi2008.com!

Pierluisi Speech at Statehood Party Rally Event

Pedro Pierluisi endorsing Senator Barack Obama for President!

Pierluisi for Congress Campaign Commercial

Ideas for 2nd Stimulus Cover Broad Swath

2008-10-22T07:07:00.000-07:00

By: CNN Money.com

The drumbeat for lawmakers to do more to boost the economy is growing louder. And the chances have increased that Congress could pass a second stimulus package during its lameduck session following the presidential election.

Over the weekend, Ed Lazear, the president's chief economic adviser, said that at least "parts of the country" are already in recession.

On Monday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told House lawmakers that "consideration of a fiscal package by the Congress at this juncture seems appropriate" given the risk of a "protracted slowdown."

And the White House said again that President Bush would be "open" to ideas for a second stimulus package, although press spokeswoman Dana Perino added that the administration would want to see details first before signing on. The administration believes that many of the proposals being discussed would not stimulate the economy.

Indeed, the path to enacting a stimulus measure is fraught with political and economic complexity. It has to be timed right and contain the right measures. It's more art than science.

What's Being Discussed

Democrats have been pushing for a second stimulus package for months. Many of their proposals have featured direct cash assistance, while Republican plans have been focused more on providing tax incentives and tax breaks.

Among the proposals from Democrats: extend jobless benefits, increase food stamps and invest more money in infrastructure projects to create jobs in the near term.

Critics of the infrastructure spending idea say it takes too long to work as economic stimulus. But proponents say it can create jobs if the money is put toward projects that are ready to go but for the funding.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that $18.3 billion worth of such projects are pending.

Democrats have also called for a moratorium on foreclosures and for making permanent a temporary increase lawmakers passed last February on loan limits for mortgages that may be backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The temporary increase on those limits to $729,750 was intended to make mortgages in high-cost areas more affordable. Previously, any loan over $417,000 was subject to higher rates. Under current law, the loan limits will fall to $625,500 next year if no changes are made.

Democrats have also been pushing for a reinstatement of seller-paid down payment assistance, which was prohibited in a housing bill signed into law this summer. The Federal Housing Administration, which backs affordable loans for borrowers with low-income or less-than-stellar credit, has said down payment assistance leads to too many homeowners defaulting.

Democrats, however, have been proposing more restrictions be placed on the provision so that it would result in far fewer losses to the FHA.

Republicans would prefer that stimulus measures include more tax breaks than direct payments. Among them: a temporary reduction or elimination of the capital gains tax on stocks and lower income tax rates for companies that buy distressed assets.

House Republicans are also calling for purchasers of homes that are not primary residences to be entitled to the same capital gains exclusion as owners who sell their primary residences. Currently, a single homeowner can exclude $250,000 of capital gains on a sale, while couples can exclude $500,000.

The proposal would only apply to people who bought second or third properties over the next 18 months and held their properties for at least five years.

"This could help take foreclosed properties off the market, raising home values," said House minority leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The presidential candidates, whose crisis-related stimulus plans differ in most ways, nevertheless both call for suspending the income tax on unemployment benefits and temporarily exempting seniors over 70-1/2 from having to make any withdrawals from their IRAs and 401(k)s.

Meanwhile, Bernanke suggested to lawmakers on Monday that they include measures "to help improve access to credit by consumers, home buyers, businesses and other borrowers."

Among the possibilities, he suggested that there could be more direct lending from the federal government to states - which are suffering from a budget crunch - as well as to consumers and businesses. Tax credits are another option, he said.

Not Just the 'What' but the 'When'

Economists caution that any stimulus package must be well timed or it risks doing more harm than good.

Of course, that's easier said than done.

Bernanke said Monday that stimulus should be enacted when things are at their worst.

"Any fiscal package should be structured so that its peak effects on aggregate spending and economic activity are felt when they are most needed, namely, during the period in which economic activity would otherwise be expected to be weak," Bernanke said.

But Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, thinks ideally the best time for stimulus is at that crucial turning point between recession and recovery.

"[It] would be most effective if it hit the economy when it was already on the cusp of an upturn, thereby creating more of a V-shaped recovery. As of today, we do not see any sign of recovery in the next few months," Achuthan said.

Of course, the lag time between when legislation is passed and when it goes into effect can be two different things. The first stimulus package was passed last February. It consisted mostly of tax rebates. The rebates were first sent out in late April and continued into the summer.

The verdict on the effectiveness of those rebates is mixed to negative: While they boosted consumer spending in the short-term, they didn't do so nearly as much as they boosted consumers' savings or ability to pay down debt, neither of which is considered a short-term boost to economic activity.

The initial outlay for that first package, which also included business incentives, was $168 billion. This time around, depending on which measures are used, the cost could run between $150 billion and $300 billion.

Colin Powell endorses Obama! Is it over?

2008-10-20T07:42:00.000-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

On NBC's Meet The Press, General Colin Powell announced his support for Barack Obama on October 19, 2008. Without a doubt, this most recent endorsement in favor of Obama could be the final crippling blow to John McCain's run for the White House. General Colin Powell, a well known Republican with premier advisory experience with the likes of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush has now crossed party lines to publicly and firmly support Senator Barack Obama to become our next President of the United States.

Such an endorsement has political experts across the nation expressing the possibility that this Presidential election could be over, though Colin's endorsement was on the radar as a rumor for months, nobody could have imagined it would come so close to the election where it would result fatal for the GOP's run for the White House. Apparently that scenario has arrived, and there are few who now would dare to predict a McCain-Palin victory at the polls. According to the most recent state polls, Senator Barack Obama enjoys a slight advantage over McCain in Florida, a key battleground state; but most importantly and shockingly for the Gop, Obama is practically tied in North Carolina and is in striking distance to win Virginia, two deadlock states for the Gop for the last 20 years! Not even President Bill Clinton won those states!

This year's election will undoubtedly be a historical follow through of the American dream story. This election could cement America's legacy of freedom, democracy, diversity, inclusion and liberty which would represent the first step of regaining the respect and admiration that America has lost internationally due to President Bush's disastrous foreign and domestic policies during the past eight years of the GOP's administration. Senator Obama making history as our nation's first African American President is not the sole reason for celebration in terms of historic relevancy,yet it is his ability to unite the American people, regardless of race or religious beliefs that will make this election one for the ages. I am proud to be part of a generation that will witness this potentially unforgettable event in our nation's history.

Congressman Serrano's testimony on HR 900 (April 2007)

2008-10-10T13:34:00.000-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

Click on the video above to view Congressman Jose Serrano's testimony on HR 900 "The Puerto Rico Democracy Act" in April of 2007. This testimony is one of the best that I have seen regarding Puerto Rico's political status. Enjoy!

Puerto Rican Boom in Florida

2008-10-10T07:47:00.000-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

On this edition of Puerto Rico Democrat Corner, we will take an in depth glimpse of the fastest growing Puerto Rican population in the continental United States.

 Although Puerto Ricans still concentrate in the state of New York, their proportion decreased from nearly three-fourths of the total in 1960 to less than one-third in 2000.

 For the first time ever, the number of Puerto Ricans in New York declined in the 1990s.

 Correspondingly, the proportion of Puerto Ricans has increased in other states, especially in Florida.

 During the 1990s, Florida displaced New Jersey as the second largest concentration of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. mainland (after New York).

 Florida’s Puerto Rican population grew from slightly more than 2 percent of all stateside Puerto Ricans in 1960 to more than 14 percent in the year 2000.

 The number of Puerto Rican residents in Florida rose from 482,027 in 2000 to 571,755 persons in 2003.

 Within Florida, Puerto Ricans have settled in three main regions.

 In 2003, more than 206,000 persons of Puerto Rican origin lived in the Central Florida, particularly in Orange, Osceola, Volusia, Seminole, and Polk counties.

 A secondary concentration is found in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, with about 155,000 Puerto Ricans.

 A third cluster has emerged around the Tampa Bay area, especially in Hillsborough County, with almost 68,000 Puerto Ricans.

History of Puerto Ricans in Florida

 The earliest recorded movement of Puerto Ricans to Florida consisted of a small number of agricultural business owners who settled in the Miami area in the 1940s.

 The first large-scale movement of Puerto Ricans to Florida took place in the 1950s under the contract farm worker program sponsored by the Migration Division of Puerto Rico’s Department of Labor.

 By then, the class composition of Puerto Rican migration to South Florida had shifted predominantly toward the working class.

 During the 1970s, Puerto Rican government officials negotiated contracts for hundreds of seasonal workers with sugar growers in Florida.

Puerto Rican Education in Florida

 Nearly three-fourths of Puerto Ricans in the Orlando area had completed a high school education.

 Contrary to popular stereotypes, U.S.-born Puerto Ricans tend to be better educated than those born on the Island.

Employment and Economical Data

 More than half of all Puerto Ricans in Central Florida were employed in administrative support, sales, professional, technical, and managerial occupations.

 Puerto Ricans in Central Florida concentrate overwhelmingly in trade and services, particularly in retail trade, arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, food services, education, health, and social services.

 In 1999, 33.3 percent of all Puerto Rican families in Central Florida earned more than $50,000 a year.

 The median family income of Puerto Ricans in Central Florida ($33,500) was more than double that of residents of Puerto Rico ($16,543).

 In 1997, Puerto Ricans in the Orlando metropolitan area owned 2,429 businesses, primarily in the service industry.

 This economic boom has attracted many Island-based companies to the area.

 Despite their achievements, Puerto Ricans have not attained socioeconomic parity with other major ethnic groups in Central Florida.

Political Preference

 Puerto Ricans in Central Florida have become a swing vote that could decide local, state, and even presidential elections.

 Most Puerto Ricans in the United States have traditionally voted for the Democratic Party.

 In 2004, Puerto Ricans in Florida supported Senator John Kerry over President George W. Bush by a margin of two to one.

 The Puerto Rican population boom has not yet translated into proportional representation in state politics.

Expanding the Battle for Equality

2008-10-09T16:29:00.001-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

Puerto Rico Senate President, Kenneth McClintock spoke at a Puerto Rican community event in Woodbine, New Jersey in where he stressed the importance of hispanic voting participation, Puerto Rican culture and the impact and contributions of Puerto Ricans throughout our nation. Senator McClintock has been known as one of, if not the only statehood leader on the island who consistently visits and interacts with Puerto Rican communities throughout the continental United States.

Such actions may be imperative immediately after the November 4th local elections, where the Pro Statehood Party lead by Luis Fortuno and Pedro Pieluisi is predicted to win the general elections by a wide margin. A landslide victory in the races for Governor, Resident Commissioner, House, Senate and municipalities could open fertile ground both in Puerto Rico and Washington, DC to put an end to the colonialist political status of Puerto Rico. If the Senate is retained by the Statehood Party by a significant majority, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court may be composed of judges with a majority pro statehood vision for the first time in history.

Nontheless, it is highly important that the Statehood movement's steps toward self determination be taken simultaneously with Puerto Rican communities in the continental United States. The fact of the matter is that many members of Congress, if not a vast majority, have not payed the Puerto Rico political status issue the attention it morally deserves. This could be in part due to the member's natural and logical action of prioritizing soley on issues relevant to their districts. If the statehood movement of Puerto Rico can manage to educate, garner and rally support among Puerto Ricans and non Puerto Ricans of congressional districts throughout the entire nation, it would therefore not only expose the island's political status dilemma, but it would effectively lure the Puerto Rico Status issue to members of Congress as a top priority, for they would be receiving pressure from constituents of their districts.

In a nutshell, a solid local electoral victory with the bipartisan ticket of Luis Fortuno and Pedro Pierluisi, an ideological majority in the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, in conjunction with a nationwide grassroots movement on the mainland in favor of a federally endorsed Puerto Rico self determination process could facilitate the statehood movement with all the necesarry tools to make history by achieving its objective of becoming the fifty first state of the union.

Biden wins Debate!

2008-10-07T15:56:00.000-07:00

(CNN) -- A national poll of people who watched the vice presidential debate Thursday night suggests that Democratic Sen. Joe Biden won, but also says Republican Gov. Sarah Palin exceeded expectations.

Poll respondents give Sen. Joe Biden the edge over Gov. Sarah Palin in ability to express views.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. said 51 percent of those polled thought Biden did the best job, while 36 percent thought Palin did the best job.

But respondents said the folksy Palin was more likable, scoring 54 percent to Biden's 36 percent. Seventy percent said Biden was more of a typical politician.

Both candidates exceeded expectations -- 84 percent of the people polled said Palin did a better job than they expected, while 64 percent said Biden also exceeded expectations.

How Palin would perform had been a major issue for the Alaska governor, who had some well-publicized fumbles during interviews with CBS' Katie Couric leading up to the debate.
Respondents thought Biden was better at expressing his views, giving him 52 percent to Palin's 36 percent.

On the question of the candidates' qualifications to assume the presidency, 87 percent of those polled said Biden is qualified and 42 percent said Palin is qualified.

The candidates sparred over which team would be the better agent of change, and Biden came out on top of that debate, with 53 percent of those polled giving the nod to the Delaware senator while 42 percent said Palin was more likely to bring change.

Respondents overwhelmingly said moderator Gwen Ifill was fair during the vice presidential debate, repudiating critics who said that Ifill, of PBS, would be biased because she is writing a book that includes Biden's running mate, Sen. Barack Obama.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Obama was selected as a winner over Republican Sen. John McCain in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll on the September 26 presidential debate.

Jose Serrano, a Puerto Rican friend in Congress

2008-10-07T15:01:00.000-07:00

José Enrique Serrano (born October 24, 1943) is a New York politician, currently representing the state's 16th congressional district in the United States House of Representatives. His son, Jose M. Serrano is a member of the New York State Senate.

Serrano's district is one of the smallest in the country geographically consisting of a few miles of the heavily urbanized and populated South Bronx in New York City. His district is also one of the most densely populated and one of the few majority Hispanic districts in the country. Yankee Stadium is in his district. In addition to José Marco, Serrano has four other children.

Early years
Serrano was born in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. At the age of seven, Serrano was taken by his family to The Bronx. Serrano went to high school and then Lehman College for his undergraduate degree. He served in the United States Army medical corps from 1964 to 1966.

Serrano was elected to the New York state Assembly in 1974 as a Democrat, where he served as chairman of the Consumer Affairs Committee and, subsequently, the Education Committee.

House of Representatives
In 1990, Serrano won a special election for a House of Representatives seat vacated by resigning Congressman Robert García and has thereafter been reelected, usually by over 90 percent of the vote, in what is considered one of the safest seats in Congress.

Political positions
Serrano is an advocate of ending the trade embargo on Cuba and for English Plus, which would encourage Americans to become bilingual. He has consistently supported initiatives to resolve Puerto Rico's political status problem, including the 1998 Young bill, which he coauthored, and the Dec. 22, 2005 report of the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Political Status, which recommends that Congress provide an opportunity for residents in Puerto Rico to vote for or against its current status, which the report describes as an unincorporated U.S. territory and Serrano describes as a U.S. colony. Serrano has filed a bill, HR 900, with Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuño, which has been cosponsored by 129 other Democratic and Republican members of Congress to authorize such a referendum by 2009.

A member of the Progressive Caucus, he is widely regarded as one of the most liberal members of Congress. He has been questioned about his pork barrel spending by some fiscal conservative members of Congress. Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake once said of Serrano's $150,000 earmark to repair the roof at the city-owned Arthur Avenue Market (an historic indoor produce and prepared food market in the Bronx's "Little Italy"), "I would argue this is one cannoli the taxpayer doesn’t want to take a bite of." Serrano replied to Flake: "The more you get up on these, Sir, the more I realize that you do not know what you are talking about. I make no excuses about the fact that I earmark dollars to go in the poorest congressional district in the nation, which is situated in the richest city on earth."
On November 18, 2005, he was one of three votes in favor of immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The other two votes were from Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Robert Wexler of Florida.

In 2005, Serrano introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd Amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as president. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Serrano has paid attention to local environmental issues in New York, with a particular focus on constructing greenways, acquiring parklands, and cleaning up the Bronx River, which runs through his district. Recently a beaver was discovered swimming in the river for the first time in 200 years, something seen as a testament to his efforts. In 2007, he engineered the purchase of the last privately-owned island in NY harbor--South Brother Island--for preservation in perpetuity by the City of New York as a wildlife refuge for rare shorebirds.

Actions and committees
Congressman Serrano has been a critic of the Bush administration's approach to handling President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. In 2005, while the Venezuelan President was in New York City speaking before the United Nations, the congressman invited him to his district to speak to his constituency.

Serrano is one of three New York-area congressmen on the House Appropriations Committee, the others being Nita Lowey of the 18th District and Steve Rothman of New Jersey's 9th congressional district (which abuts New York City). He is the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services. As chairman, he successfully engineered the inclusion of language in the 2007 omnibus spending bill that guarantees the extension of the 50 State Quarters program to include the minting of 6 additional quarters to honor the District of Columbia and the 5 United States territories, including Serrano's native Puerto Rico.

Serrano has also been an advocate for Puerto Ricans under FBI prosecution. In May of 2000 he brokered an agreement with then FBI Director Louis Freeh, then Puerto Rican Independence Party senator Manuel Rodríguez Orellana and then Puerto Rico Senate Federal Affairs Committee chairman Kenneth McClintock, the islands' current Senate President, that has resulted in the release of nearly 100,000 pages of previously secret FBI files on Puerto Rican political activists.

Palin under Scrutiny

2008-10-06T07:03:00.000-07:00

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Seven employees of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's administration have agreed to give statements in the state Legislature's investigation into her firing of the state's public safety commissioner, the attorney general and lawmakers involved in the probe said Sunday.

Gov. Sarah Palin's campaign says the investigation in Alaska has been "tainted" by partisan politics.

The seven, including Palin's chief of staff, had tried to fight subpoenas issued by the state Senate Judiciary Committee.But an Anchorage judge upheld the subpoenas Thursday, and Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg, whose department challenged the authority of the subpoenas, notified the committee Sunday that the seven would give statements after all.
"Despite my initial concerns about the subpoenas, we respect the court's decision to defer to the legislature," Colberg said in a statement.

Colberg said his department was working with Judiciary Committee Chairman Hollis French to arrange the testimony.
"We're still working out the details," said French.

French said he believes statements could be taken without pushing back the scheduled Friday release of a report by Stephen Branchflower, the former Anchorage prosecutor conducting the investigation into Palin's July firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.
Palin's husband, Todd, has also been resisting a subpoena, and there has been no word on whether he would challenge Thursday's ruling.

Palin has insisted that the state Personnel Board conduct the investigation.
Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein told CNN that "all options are possible" for Todd Palin to participate in the Legislative Council's investigation, including a joint interview with Branchflower and Tim Petumenos, the investigator for the Personnel Board's inquiry.
Todd Palin will likely speak with Petumenos later in the month, Van Flein said, adding, "Ultimately, I think he will" participate in the legislative investigation.

Regarding the governor's advisers, Van Flein said, "It's appropriate for all the state employees to give their testimony. ... Everyone has wanted that for a long time."

Another member of the committee, state Sen. Bill Wielechowski, said some of the witnesses have already given statements to Colberg, a Palin appointee.

"I don't think there's a whole lot of new information that's going to come out of them," Wielechowski said.

Both French and Wielechowski are Democrats. French in particular has been accused of leading a biased investigation by Palin's allies, some of whom are now asking the state Supreme Court to halt the Legislature's probe.

Palin, now the Republican vice presidential nominee, says she sacked Monegan over budget disagreements. But Monegan has said he believes he was fired because he resisted pressure to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten.

Palin has denied any wrongdoing, calling Wooten a "rogue trooper" who had threatened her family during his divorce from the governor's sister.Though she initially agreed to cooperate with the Legislature's investigation, her campaign has called it "tainted" by partisan politics since she became Sen. John McCain's running mate and insisted that the state Personnel Board handle any inquiry.

On Friday, lawmakers backing Palin appealed Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski's refusal to block the state Legislature's investigation.

"If this unconstitutional and unlawful investigation is allowed to continue, is completed, and if the resulting report is released as planned, Plaintiffs and Alaskans in general will suffer irreparable harm," lawyers for the Liberty Legal Foundation told the Alaska Supreme Court.The Texas-based conservative group is representing Republican legislators who support Palin and are asking the court in Alaska to shut down the probe, which they call "biased."

Michalski in his ruling rejected arguments that the investigation violated the state constitution's guarantee of due process and fair treatment and said it was up to the Legislature to manage its own investigation.

President Truman Statue unveiled at the Puerto Rico Capitol

2008-10-04T19:10:00.000-07:00

The Capitol- The President of the Senate, Kenneth McClintock and Senator Juan Eugenio Hernandez Mayoral unveiled a commemorative statue of President Harry S Truman in remembrance of his visit to Puerto Rico in 1948 while still in office.

“Today, we dedicate this ceremony to a friend of Puerto Rico, a true patriot who loved his nation , its territories and Puerto Rico dearly. Today, as we pay tribute to Truman , let us remember how he impacted history by molding a democratic form of government for the people of Puerto Rico and the entire nation” expressed McClintock.

The legislative assembly of Puerto Rico will recognize and honor all Presidents of the United States that visited the island during their term in office: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and Herbert Hoover all with their respective statues which will be exhibited on the Capitol grounds. In April, the statue of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated in another ceremony in which President Bill Clinton participated as the special invited guest.

The Senate President added, “Truman appointed the first Puerto Rican Governor, Mr. Jesus T. Pinero, and later made Puerto Rico the first territory under American jurisdiction whose executive figure and legislature were held accountable towards their electors since 1948. President Truman was a firm believer in self government and promoted that people of Puerto Rico select their political leaders, and therefore empower them to create and administer our laws to ultimately permit our people to redact and establish a local constitution during his last term as President of the United States.

“In moments when we celebrate Hispanic Heritage month both here on the island and the mainland, let us never forget those who were interested in molding the liberty of our people to choose democracy and freedom as our premier ideals of which we are very proud of today”, expressed McClintock.

The ceremony included the participation of ex Governor Jesus T Pinero’s son, Jose Pinero, who received President Truman on the island in 1948.

The Popular Democratic Party's myopic view on language

2008-10-01T15:06:00.000-07:00

The Popular Democratic Party's myopic view on language
By : CARLOS ROMERO BARCELÓ
Edition:Caribbean Business September 25, 2008 | Volume: 36 | No: 38

When the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) won its first election in 1940, it began a peaceful socioeconomic revolution that was sorely needed in Puerto Rico.
With President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s help and support, together with Rexford Guy Tugwell’s outstanding executive and organizational ability, Muñoz Marín’s socioeconomic platform was put into effect.

The poor farmers and the blue-collar workers saw hope and opportunity as never before. From the beginning of World War II in 1941, unemployment on the island was substantially reduced as most young men volunteered or were drafted to serve in the U.S. Armed Services. Military roads, military camps, airports, port facilities and other needed infrastructure were built with federal funds.

PR-2, which was called “Carretera Militar,” was built during the war. The road between Cayey and Salinas, Fort Buchanan, Fort Brooke Military Camp, the Naval Air base in Miramar, Borinquen Airfield in Aguadilla, Naval Station Roosevelt Roads and many other infrastructure works started a construction boom in Puerto Rico during the war.

After the war, federal funds for public housing, to purchase land and distribute it to the poor in parcelas, funds for education and health were increased, benefiting our underprivileged, and a middle class started growing and expanding as more and better-paid jobs were created.

Nevertheless, the most significant and important of all federal programs over the long term was the G.I. Bill of Rights (Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944), which provided funds for technical, specialized and professional education of veterans. The number of Puerto Rican veterans that benefited from the G.I. Bill of Rights was enormous. No other program has meant so much to so many in Puerto Rico as the G.I. Bill of Rights. Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans, who would never have had the opportunity to study, could now became master electricians, master plumbers, medical technicians, engineers, doctors, lawyers, business managers and teachers.

The G.I. Bill of Rights allowed Puerto Ricans to reap the benefits of education to put the island on the industrial map by providing workers and professionals with the know-how necessary for economic development and to attract outside investors.

Muñoz Marín and his PDP benefited from the war and the federal programs. The funding and the education achievement stimulated by federal monies were wisely used by Muñoz and his party. The economic growth in Puerto Rico from the beginning of the WWII in 1941 through the 1950s was so impressive that Puerto Rico was hailed as “The Showcase of Democracy.”

However, as Puerto Rico developed economically, the people started wondering more and more whether we wouldn’t be better off as a state. Muñoz Marín and his party leaders were leery of the growing pro-American sentiment in Puerto Rico and the growing demand for political equality with our fellow citizens in the 50 states. As a result, they structured a plan to undermine the growing demand for equality.

The plan consisted of setting up barriers against statehood. They decided upon three “impediments” to becoming a state. They planned and carried out a massive public relations campaign in Puerto Rico and on the U.S. mainland.

The arguments they presented were that if Puerto Rico become a state, our economy would plummet because: (1) as a state, we couldn’t grant federal income-tax exemption to industries and, without the tax exemption, manufacturing companies wouldn’t invest in Puerto Rico; (2) if we had to pay federal minimum wages, Puerto Rico would be afflicted by massive unemployment; and (3) if Puerto Rico became a state, we would all have to speak English and Spanish would be lost.

Muñoz and his PDP cohorts were afraid that the more people spoke English and the more English people spoke, the easer it would be for statehooders to convince people that Puerto Rico should become a state. As all negative movements inevitably do, this one ended up by espousing a strategy that has done much harm to our people.

Their strategy was to reduce the use of English as much as possible, especially in schools. Before this anti-English campaign, all classes in Puerto Rico, whether in public or privates schools, were held in English, with the obvious exception of the Spanish class. Under Muñoz Marín’s leadership, teaching in English was alleged to be antipedagogic. The Teacher Exchange Program—through which teachers from the States came to Puerto Rico to learn Spanish and teach English, while teachers from Puerto Rico went to the States to teach Spanish and improved their English—was terminated. As a result, we have never had enough teachers proficient enough in English to teach our children adequately. The teaching of English has deteriorated at an accelerated pace.

Today, if it weren’t for cable TV, the movies and Puerto Ricans returning from the mainland U.S., our proficiency in English would leave much to be desired.

In the meantime, right after the end of WWII, migration from Puerto Rico to the U.S. mainland grew by leaps and bounds and hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans and their families had difficulty finding a good job, because of their inability to properly communicate in English.

While all nations around the world are teaching English to their children—because it is the world’s most widely used language in commerce, banking, aviation, science and technology—we in Puerto Rico have been hurting several generations of our people who haven’t been taught enough English to take advantage of the opportunities available to those who can speak and write both languages. We, who as U.S. citizens need to know English to get along better with our fellow citizens, have not only been neglected, but maliciously denied the opportunity to be fully bilingual.

Today, all over the 50 states of the union and in Central and South American countries, bilingual individuals have many more job and economic opportunities than they would if they were fluent in English or Spanish only.

In contrast to the PDP’s attitude against English, in Washington, D.C., there is a bilingual public school where half the course is taught in English and the second half in Spanish. The name of the school is Oyster Bilingual School and the waiting list of students whose parents want them to be bilingual is very long.

The harm done to the future and aspirations of several generations of public-school children by the PDP as a result of denying them the opportunity to be fluent in both languages can’t be easily undone. However, we must commit and dedicate ourselves to work hard toward developing a bilingual community. Whoever in America (whether North, Central or South) doesn’t realize the importance of being proficient in both Spanish and English is either being obtuse, or is very prejudiced against the United States.

Barack Obama Slams McCain on Afghanistan-Iraq War Issue!

2008-09-29T12:19:00.000-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

On what was truly a historic first 2008 presidential debate, Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama surprised critics and followers as well by according to many of them, effectively dominating the first presidential debate, on issues considered to be Republican presidential candidate John McCain's stronpoints; national defense and international policy!

Such an impressive showing by Senator Obama has many critics and political analysts indicating a potential downshift in Senator McCain's campaign. I on the contrary personally believe that both candidates held their own throughout the entire debate, although I did see Senator Obama with a slight edge due in part to his confidence, eye contact and demeanor. As for the rest of the debates, it seems everything should continue to shift in Obama's favor, due to the fact that these will be focused on domestic issues, specifically the economy.

Click on the video to watch Obama counter McCain!

2008 Puerto Rico Democratic Primaries Flashback

2008-09-29T09:06:00.000-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

Access videos of Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's visits to Puerto Rico during the 2008 Puerto Rico primaries:

President Harry Truman Statue Inauguration!

2008-09-29T07:45:00.001-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

This Thursday, October 2nd, 2008 the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly along with its Presidents, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock and Jose Aponte will inaugurate a commemorative statue of President Harry Truman in remembrance of his visit to Puerto Rico in 1948.

This event will count with the participation of President Truman's grandson, Mr. Clifton Truman Daniel, all elected legislators and their staffers and is open to the general public. Do not miss this historical event! Mark it on your calendar!

Schedule:
Date: October 2nd, 2008

Time: 10am

Place: La Rotonda, El Capitolio, San Juan, PR

Final Push for HR 900 Puerto Rico Democracy Act!

2008-09-06T21:23:00.000-07:00

Este video se creo para aglutinar a todo nuestro pueblo para exigirle a la Presidenta de la Camara Federal Nancy Pelosi y el lider de la mayoria Steny Hoyer a que bajen el HR 900 para asi resolver de una vez y por todas nuestro status colonial.

This video was created with the purpose of urging Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to bring HR 900 The Puerto Rico Democracy Act down for a vote on the House floor in order to give the Puerto Rican people the opportunity to resolve its political status with the United States.

UNIDOS LO PODEMOS LOGRAR!

Enviar mensaje de apoyo y reclamo para que bajen la medida HR 900 a las siguientes direcciones:
Send a message of support to the following numbers:

Office of the Speaker/ Oficina de Presidenta Nancy Pelosi:
(202) 225-0100

Steny Hoyer Majority Leader/ Lider de la Mayoria:

phone/telefono:(202) 225-4131

Seremos mas efectivos si logramos una avalancha de llamadas e emails!Asi que tratemos de llamar todos los dias de lo que resta del mes a los numeros arriba mencionados. En la hora de almuerzo, por la manana, cuando estes en el tapon, etc. son momentos ideales!

Teamwork is key. We will be successfull by creating an avalanche of calls and emails to Nancy Pelosi's and Steny Hoyer's offices. Let's try to call and send emails everyday until the end of the month, which is end of session. Lunch hour, in the morning, and in the traffic jam are ideal moments of the day! Let's do it!

Recent Legislative Activity/ Tramite Legislativo:

2/7/2007:
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

2/13/2007:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs.

3/22/2007:
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
4/25/2007:
Subcommittee Hearings Held.

10/23/2007:
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs Discharged.
10/23/2007:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
10/23/2007:
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

4/22/2008 2:33pm:
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-597.
4/22/2008 2:34pm:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 370.

DEADLINE: END OF SEPTEMBER!!!!!

President Harry Truman and his visit to Puerto Rico (February 21st, 1948)

2008-09-04T20:53:00.000-07:00

On this edition of PR Democrat Corner we take a glimpse into the life and term in office of President Harry S. Truman and his visit to the island of Puerto Rico on February 21st, 1948 where he met with then Puerto Rico Governor Jesus T. Pinero and Puerto Rico President of the Senate Luis Munoz Marin.

Harry S. Truman (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was the thirty-third President of the United States (1945–1953). As vice president, he succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died less than three months after he began his fourth term.

During World War I Truman served as an artillery officer. After the war he became part of the political machine of Tom Pendergast and was elected a county judge in Missouri and eventually a United States Senator. After he gained national prominence as head of the wartime Truman Committee, Truman replaced vice president Henry A. Wallace as Roosevelt's running mate in 1944.

As president, Truman faced challenge after challenge in domestic affairs. The disorderly reconversion of the economy of the United States was marked by severe shortages, numerous strikes, and the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act over his veto. He confounded all predictions to win re-election in 1948, largely due to his famous Whistle Stop Tour of rural America. After his re-election he was able to pass only one of the proposals in his Fair Deal program.

He used executive orders to begin desegregation of the U.S. armed forces and to launch a system of loyalty checks to remove thousands of communist sympathizers from government office, even though he strongly opposed mandatory loyalty oaths for governmental employees, a stance that led to charges that his administration was soft on communism.

Truman's presidency was also eventful in foreign affairs, with the end of World War II and his decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan, the founding of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, the Truman Doctrine to contain communism, the beginning of the Cold War, the creation of NATO, and the Korean War. Corruption in Truman's administration reached the cabinet and senior White House staff. Republicans made corruption a central issue in the 1952 campaign.

Truman, whose demeanor was very different from that of the patrician Roosevelt, was a folksy, unassuming president. He popularized such phrases as "The buck stops here" and "If you can't stand the heat, you better get out of the kitchen."[1] He overcame the low expectations of many political observers who compared him unfavorably with his highly regarded predecessor. At one point in his second term, near the end of the Korean War, Truman's public opinion ratings reached the lowest point yet recorded for any United States president until George W. Bush. Despite negative public opinion during his term in office, popular and scholarly assessments of his presidency became more positive after his retirement from politics and the publication of his memoirs. U.S. scholars today rank him among the top ten best presidents. Truman's legendary upset victory in 1948 over Thomas E. Dewey is routinely invoked by underdog presidential candidates.

PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S SPEECH IN SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO: (Click on official documents to read the President's personal Log)

(All Photos were taken in Puerto Rico courtesy of Truman Memorial Library)

Info: Wikipedia.com

2008 Democratic National Convention Speeches

2008-09-04T19:41:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama Convention Speech

Michelle Obama Convention Speech

Hillary Clinton Convention Speech

Bill Clinton Convention Speech

Ted Kennedy Convention Speech

Al Gore Convention Speech

Evan Bayh Convention Speech

McClintock speaks at Atlantic City PR Day Parade!

2008-08-12T06:26:00.000-07:00

ATLANTIC CITY-- For the past 12 years on the second Sunday of August people from New Jersey and surrounding states celebrate Puerto Rican culture on the Atlantic City boardwalk. The culture involves much more than music, dancing and food.Hundreds came out to the Atlantic City boardwalk for the Puerto Rican parade and Latin music festival.The goal is to educate the community on puerto rico's history, heritage and traditions.

Many would describe the food, the music and dancing as puerto rican culture."We're all about our culture and getting together and having a good time," said one parade-goer.By the looks of the crowd, they are having a good time, but many believe the culture goes even deeper."My message to them is yes, food is part of our culture, music is part of our culture...voting is part of our culture," said Kenneth McClintock, President of Senate, Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States for the past 110 years and while they can only vote in presidential primaries and not in presidential elections, they take politics very seriously."We're one of the most politically sophisticated jurisdictions under the American flag," said McClintock.Puerto Rico has a population of 3.9 million while nearly 4 million Puerto Rican’s have moved and now reside here in the states."What we're basically seeking now is approval of a bill in Congress HR-900…to allow people of Puerto Rico to vote no later than 2009 as to whether they want to remain as they are or whether they want change," explained McClintock.If they want change, there would then be a second vote between independence and statehood.Recent polls in Puerto Rico show over 57 percent of the people support statehood and less than 3 percent support independence.

If Puerto Rico should become a state, they would have 2 Senators and 6 members of the House of Representatives, causing a huge shift in the American political structure.Between 82 to 83 percent of Puerto Ricans vote in every election, whereas only about 40 percent of all eligible voters turn out for presidential elections here in the states.So until a change is made, they will continue to celebrate their Puerto Rican pride the best way they can.

CLICK ON LINK TO ACCESS VIDEO:

http://www.nbc40.net/pages/videoplayer/video.php?vid=6496

Hillary Clinton to campaign for Obama

2008-08-06T05:33:00.000-07:00

(CNN) – Hillary Clinton will campaign for Barack Obama on two dates in August, the Obama campaign announced Tuesday.

She will hold rallies and voter registration drives in the swing states of Nevada and Florida on August 8 and 21, respectively. Obama won’t attend Friday’s event since he is taking a planned vacation with his family — and it’s not yet clear whether he’ll be at the latter date, which falls just days before the Democratic convention in Denver.

The last time Obama and Clinton were seen together was at a New York fundraiser on July 10, when she told donors, “I’m going to do everything I can and everything I’m asked to make sure he takes the oath of office on January 20th, 2009.”

That fundraiser was one of three the pair have held since Clinton suspended her campaign in early June, and just their second public appearance together.

Obama has said on several occasions that he hopes for both Bill and Hillary Clinton’s help campaigning to win in November.

“I am proud to call [Hillary] my friend, and I know that I desperately need her and Bill Clinton involved in this campaign,” Obama said in New York.

Obama pide orden en la casa boricua

2008-08-06T05:09:00.000-07:00

Por José A. Delgado / jdelgado@elnuevodía.com

WASHINGTON – Los demócratas boricuas esperan acordar un lenguaje de consenso sobre temas prioritarios referentes a Puerto Rico, incluido el status politico, que puedan ser elevados al programa de gobierno del Partido Demócrata de Estados Unidos.

A petición del comité electoral de Barack Obama, los líderes demócratas en Puerto Rico hoy comienzan a escuchar a personas que interesen sugerir ideas al partido estadounidense.
“Lo ideal es que la plataforma refleje la posición del candidato o una versión mejorada”, dijo el presidente de los demócratas de la Isla, Roberto Prats, en referencia a la reunión que tiene lugar esta noche en la sede de la Unión de Tronquistas, en Santurce.

En el plan que le presentó en febrero al gobernador Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, Obama se comprometió a mantener una “estricta neutralidad” en el tema del futuro político de la Isla y a considerar como alternativas procesales tanto la convocatoria de un plebiscito como una Asamblea Constitucional de Status.

¿Cree que Planificación debe imponer una moratoria de construcción en la zona costera?
Sí
No

En un artículo de opinión que publicó casi en la víspera de las primarias presidenciales estadounidenses en Puerto Rico, Obama, además, dijo que cualquier nuevo proceso de status debe partir del “consenso”.

El Partido Popular Democrático (PPD), cuyos principales líderes apoyaron a Obama en las primarias, promueve la convocatoria a una Asamblea Constitucional de Status. Mientras, el Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP), que tuvo también importantes sectores dentro de la campaña de Obama, acaba de decidir que el próximo cuatrienio volverá a presionar a favor de la convocatoria a un plebiscito federal.

Kenneth McClintock, delegado ante el Partido Demócrata de Estados Unidos y presidente del Senado de Puerto Rico, dijo que quisiera que Obama incorpore en el programa demócrata la propuesta de Hillary Clinton a favor de que haya una solución al debate del status “en los próximos cuatro años”.

Tanto Prats como McClintock respaldaron a Clinton durante las primarias presidenciales demócratas.

McClintock, sin embargo, sostuvo que es preferible esperar por el desarrollo de los trabajos del comité de Programa, antes de aventurarse a pronosticar qué compromisos con Puerto Rico se pueden conseguir a nivel del partido estadounidense.

Puerto Rico opposition parties reject Governor's call for more sovereignty

2008-08-04T06:36:00.000-07:00

Puerto Rico opposition parties reject governor's call for more sovereignty
Published on Thursday, July 31, 2008

By MM Sierra Caribbean Net News Puerto Rico

Correspondent Email: miranda@caribbeannetnews.com

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico: After Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila called for the enhancement of the Commonwealth with more sovereign powers under the democratic premise that Puerto Rico’s political status future should rest on the people, members of opposing political parties immediately reacted saying that the governor “is trying to deviously create the false impression that we can retain perpetual and permanent American citizenship even if we acquired the sovereignty we currently do not have.”

During the 56th celebration of the Commonwealth’s Constitution Day last week, Acevedo Vila said that an enhanced commonwealth with more sovereign powers is not a synonym for independence. Senate President Kenneth McClintock told Caribbean Net News that there is no status “with more sovereign powers.” “You either have sovereignty or you don’t. Puerto Rico, as a United States territory exercises but does not possess, most of the sovereign powers it would begin to possess as a matter of right upon admission as a federated state of the United States,” McClintock said.

Kenneth McClintock, Puerto Rico Senate President New Progressive Party Gubernatorial Candidate Luis Fortuno has also made similar comments saying that the governor is trying to lead Puerto Rico to a road of separation from the United States after calling for a Commonwealth with more sovereign powers. Fortuno, a Republican, who believes in statehood for the island is also against the governor’s call on celebrating a Constituent Assembly to define the island’s political status. Fortuno, who is also the Commonwealth’s Resident Commissioner in Washington DC, has said that the island’s status problems need to be resolved through a referendum, in which Puerto Ricans will be able to vote directly for the Commonwealth’s status option they prefer. While McClintock said that Puerto Rico could obtain national sovereign powers by becoming a sovereign nation.

“However, national sovereignty would preclude permanent US citizenship. Technically, Puerto Rico’s current exercise of State sovereignty isn’t accompanied by permanent American citizenship – and shouldn’t, since Puerto Rico can conceivably become a sovereign nation. But in practicality, the current exercise of State-like sovereignty is now accompanied by perpetual, if not permanent, US citizenship: in reality US citizenship will continue as long as Puerto Rico is to remain subject to US national sovereignty,” the Senate President added.

Meanwhile, Puerto Rico Independence Party President Edwin Irizarry Mora said that Acevedo Vila’s speech “are just words and manipulations” he is recurring to because he’s politically desperate and trying to find votes from citizens that believe in the island’s independence as the solution for the status dilemma. “It constitutes of an act of cynicism and of opportunism without precedents because Acevedo Vila, who until the day he became a federal target for acts of political corruptions, had been the most unconditional and servile of the Puerto Rican colonialists…His actions demonstrate that in his desperation he is capable of anything,” Irizarry Mora said.

While McClintock said that the governor is allegedly “trying to deviously create the false impression that we can retain perpetual and permanent American citizenship even if we acquired the sovereignty we currently do not have.” “His (Acevedo Vila’s) polls as well as our (the New Progressive Party polls) demonstrate that Puerto Ricans overwhelmingly cherish their American citizenship,” McClintock added.

POPULAR "DEMOCRATIC" PARTY: Are they truly Democratic?

2008-07-22T16:39:00.000-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

For those of us living on the island of Puerto Rico and actively involved in our nation's political process whether it be with the Republican or Democratic Party, it is sometimes disappointing and unfortunate to see a local political party consistently contradict itself in so many ways. For years the pro-"commonwealth" party in Puerto Rico, also known as the PDP Popular "Democratic" Party has expressed its unwavering support of the people's involvement in all political decisions of the island. They expressed it when the party was created in 1937-38, they expressed it in 1952, during the birth of the "commonwealth" the exact date in which for the first time the Puerto Rican flag stood equally right next to the stars and stripes of our great nation and they continue to preach the same in Congress today as their key argument against any type of self determination legislation presented that would in any way threaten the island's current colonial political status.

The Popular "Democratic" Party and its current President and Governor of Puerto Rico, Anibal Acevedo Vila have in numerous occasions stated that the future of Puerto Rico lies in the sole hands of the Puerto Rican people and that in no way and matter should the Federal government intervene in this process. What is truly contradicting and ridiculous is how the so called Popular "Democratic" Party has teamed up for years with members of the Republican Party in Washington, DC to put a stop to any type of legislation that would facilitate the people of Puerto Rico with a federally sponsored and consensus providing instrument or mechanism to solve the island's political status once and for all. They propose that Puerto Rico's political future be decided by a select group of politicians and civic leaders that would in turn decide the island's fate behind closed doors through a constitutional convention and NOT by the people. They team up with members of the Republican elite, members of congress, lobbyists , donators, etc. to counter the Democratic Party's known and genuine willingness to participate actively in helping the Puerto Rican people's desire for change. Let's face it, a vast majority of hispanics on the mainland United States vote Democratic, therefore it makes sense for the local commonwealth party to team up with members of the Republican elite, because it would ultimately avoid the GOP a huge headache with a possible hispanic 51st state of the union. This would also cause the current status quo political status of Puerto Rico to remain intact. So therefore , both sides are happy, right? Well in the eyes of many this is in no way acceptable.

The future and well being of the people of Puerto Rico should not be decided by political party interests , both with the only intention of putting a stop to change, all at the expense of 4 million american citizens on the island of Puerto Rico who are stripped of rights as fundamental as the ability to vote for our commander of chief, the President of the United States. It's not right, it's undemocratic and it is also unamerican.

Today, we see a Popular " Democratic" Party lead by Governor Acevedo Vila that has shifted so far to the left that during their past Party assembly he announced that he supports a sovereign commonwealth status for the island. One that is incompatible with the United States constitution and with international law for that matter. He and his party propose that Puerto Rico remain as a commonwealth, yet at the same time wish to have complete "autonomy" and the ability to negotitate independently with other countries such as Venezuela and China. Even more absurd is the proposal made by PDP Party Platform Chairman Willy Miranda Marin of requesting the Federal Government over 120 billon dollars up front for the island in order to "put a stop to federal dependency".

This type of contradicting and political flip flopping only indicates one thing. The Popular "Democratic" Party is NOT democratic, ít is a hypocritical political organization that only seeks to destroy our relationship with the United States by separating us as an independent nation. As Democrats we should censure and condemn these "so called Democrats" who love to have photo ops with members of our Democratic Party leadership and also campaigned for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, yet they do not believe nor do they promote that Puerto Ricans participate in the November 2008 Presidential elections. Hypocritical or not.......you be the judge.

PIERLUISI OBTAINS CANDIDACY!!!

2008-03-22T18:35:00.000-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

San Juan, PR- On March 9th, 2008 Democratic candidate for the local Puerto Rico Statehood Party, Pedro Pierluisi, obtained his party’s candidacy for Puerto Rico’s sole congressional seat as Resident Commissioner in Washington, DC. Pierluisi reached a landslide victory as he received 364,939 votes (60%) as opposed to 202, 537 votes (33%) received by runner up Charlie Rodriguez and Dr. Miriam Ramirez closed out with 41,668 (7%) of the vote.

What was a surprise for many was the very high young voter turnout in the island’s primary elections. Pierluisi managed to mount an effective and concise campaign geared towards the younger demographic of the island and he indeed received the majority vote from the younger generation of the island.

After almost a year of intense grassroots and media campaigning, Pedro Pierluisi has prevailed decisively and has now become the congressional candidate of the local Statehood Party also know as New Progressive Party. Pierluisi will now put his candidacy to the test as he squares up against Alfredo Salazar this coming November in where Puerto Rico voters will decide who will represent them in Washington , DC. The island’s New Progressive Party advocates for Puerto Rico to be admitted as the 51st state of the union. Salazar, also a Democrat will represent the island’s Popular Democratic Party which advocates to maintain the island’s current territorial and colonial political status with the United States.

Pierluisi has taken a short vacation to savor victory, but it is rumored that he will be right back on the campaign trail by next week! Puerto Rico Democrat Corner will continue to bring you updated information straight from the campaign! Stay Tuned!

FINAL RESULTS:

Pierluisi
364,939 Votes (60%)

Rodríguez
202,537 Votes (33%)

Ramírez
41,668 Votes (7%)

A Profile in Courage

2007-12-17T06:11:00.000-08:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

Over the last 7 years we have all been bombarded by local, national and international press in regards to the war in Iraq, with objective as well as partialized viewpoints in terms of our armed forces’ necessity to continue fighting in a war which in the eyes of many has no ending on the horizon. The conflict in Iraq has undoubtedly divided a nation that was an example of Democracy throughout the world, bringing flashbacks to many Americans of the war in Vietnam during the 1960’s, a war that caused severe divisiveness which resembles many of the events we see today.

Yet, among all the ruckus, media frenzy, arguments and debates, rarely do we have the opportunity to learn of the brave men and women who have fought and continue to fight for our nation abroad, regardless of the relevancy of past and current military conflicts. These are citizens of a nation that do not hesitate to put their lives on the line for all of us in the name of freedom and democracy.

Today we will shed some light on a modern day hero from Puerto Rico named “Al” or “Junior” as he is known among friends, family and loved ones. Al enlisted in the Army at the young age of 17 as soon as he concluded his high school studies, claiming a patriotic vocation to serve his country and the opportunity to see the world as his premier reasons to join. Despite being rejected equal voting and representation rights as an American Citizen of Puerto Rico, due to the island’s current political status with the United States,(citizens of Puerto Rico are disenfranchised from our nation’s electoral process) he proudly served over 26 years in the United States Army Special Operations Command, an elite military division created under President Kennedy's administration. Among the many places of the world in which this highly decorated US soldier was stationed is North Carolina, Seattle, Washington, Georgia, South Carolina, Germany, most of Europe and Vietnam during the war.

We recently had the opportunity to speak with “Al” (now retired) at his Florida home, in order to have an up close and personal interview of his thoughts and views. At the moment of this interview we were helping “Al” put up an American flag pole in front of his Florida home.

1.) As a Puerto Rican, how do you feel after so many years of having served our nation? I feel very proud of the years I dedicated to the US armed forces. Throughout those years, I have made many friends, many of whom fought next to me at Vietnam, many of whom also died bravely in defense of freedom and democracy. As a Puerto Rican and also as an American I am proud to say that I retired knowing that I always gave 110% during my military career and in defense of our great nation.

2.) Did you ever encounter racial hardships during your 26 years in the military? Actually , yes I did. But to be honest throughout my 26 year career, I only faced 2 cases of racial hardships by some of my superiors. Nonetheless, those situations were both immediately solved resulting in them being dishonorably discharged from the Army. To be specific, those situations were triggered by racial slurs against Hispanics. (Laugh) Little did they know that I was an American Citizen just like them even though I was from Puerto Rico. So I never let their ignorance take control of my actions.

3.) How did you feel back in 1969 when you were in the Vietnam War as a US soldier from Puerto Rico? I remember being a little nervous on the flight to Vietnam but as soon as we touched down, I was ok. I knew I had a job to do and I was going to do it no matter what. I was no longer nervous or scared. I felt very good about myself while I was in Vietnam knowing that although there was controversy over the war as now with the war in Iraq, I knew that I was participating in a noble and necessary cause. On many nights alone in the jungle I would think about my family and friends back in Puerto Rico, I would think of my beautiful island of Puerto Rico and home cooking! (Laugh) I did get to see a lot of Vietnam ,a very poor country back then. One of my favorite moments was when I had the chance to attend sick or wounded children for they had no part in the war and yet many times were the most that suffered.

4.) What are your thoughts on the fact that despite having served so many years in the US forces, you still cannot vote for the commander chief, nor have equal political representation if you choose to return to Puerto Rico? I have always thought it was unfair. It hurt to know that I was risking my life for America and yet America would not and still does not return the favor by at least permitting all Puerto Ricans and me the opportunity to participate in the whole Democratic process as well as having equal representation in Congress. That is why I ask from the bottom of my heart to all members of Congress to support HR 900 the Puerto Rico Democracy Act. The time of equality has arrived. It’s time for our great nation to practice what it has preached for years.

5.) What was the Vietnam war like during your tour?

Bloody. Simple as that. The Vietnam war was one of the bloodiest wars in history. Many of my friends arrived at Vietnam with me, and never returned. Among those were many fellow Puerto Ricans . I think that was one of the hardest moments to endure during my tour in Vietnam, having a friend die in front of you and keep going. When I returned from the war I would suffer from bad dreams and would wake up sweating in my bed . As a matter of fact I still have those dreams , although not as often as before.

6.) How did your parents feel when you chose to become a US soldier? My mother was against it and my father did not mind. My father was a Police Officer in Puerto Rico and my mother sewed at a factory. They were obviously sad upon hearing of my decision, but immediately supported me. My father particularly supported me due to his political activism in Puerto Rico, he was a member of the Republican Statehood Party in Puerto Rico (now the New Progressive Party) and he believed that I was doing the right thing in defending our nation.

7.) How did Puerto Rican soldiers perform in the military during your 26 years of service? To be honest and impartial, I must tell you that at least during my years of service, Puerto Rican soldiers were among the sharpest, well dressed, clean cut and effective soldiers. As soon as I applied to the Special Ops I gave 100 percent and was immediately inserted after passing the vigorous training into confidential military missions and operatives.

8.) What were your goals during your career in the military? I always dreamed of reaching the rank of Command Sergeant Major, unfortunately I severely fractured my spinal cord during a routine training and was forced to retire after 26 years of service. Nonetheless, God works in mysterious ways, I had the opportunity to spend more time with my family, especially my sons during their high school years. I never missed a sporting event in which they participated. (laugh) I don’t think I would have been able to do that if I remained active in the Army.

9.) If you had the opportunity to meet with the President of the United States to discuss Puerto Rico’s political status dilemma, what would you say to him? I would say, “Look Mr. President, look at me, I may not look like it much now, but I was a Special Ops soldier that dedicated and risked his life for you , me, and our entire nation. There is a bit of unfinished business of Democracy in Puerto Rico that must be solved for the good of our nation’s image worldwide. The moment has come for a brave President to step up to the plate and dare to do the right thing and that’s to openly urge Congress to facilitate Puerto Rico with equality”

10.) If you had the opportunity to do it all over again, would you choose to be a US soldier? (While looking at the raised American flag in front of his home) In a heartbeat………. And if I would have been more informed politically regarding the travesty of political inequality in Puerto Rico, I STILL would have served our nation proudly.

- First Sergeant Al Arroyo Ramos was a brave US Army Special Operations Command soldier who fought in Vietnam as well as many classified military Operations. He is also my father…………..

Dad this one is for you…..

LA LUCHA POR LA IGUALDAD CONTINUARA………….

THE PROCESS TOWARDS STATEHOOD

2007-12-11T18:23:00.000-08:00

By: FRANCISCO J. DOMENECH
DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES PUERTO RICO LEGISLATURE AND DELEGATE TO THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Many of the myths in terms of the process for Puerto Rico to become the 51st state of the union is the attempt to inject fear as a counter to social progress due to the complexity of the process. Nonetheless, this process is a lot simpler than it seems.

Article IV, Section 3, of the Federal Constitution grants Congress the power to admit new states to the union. The Constitution does not define, nor specify, the conditions in which statehood is ceded to a territory. Thus, Congress has the liberty to determine the conditions for admission.

Historically, the process to follow for the granting of statehood is as follows: a majority of the population of the territory votes in favor of annexation; the territory petitions Congress to become a state; the territory constitutes its government in Republican form; then, the Federal House and Senate approve a joint resolution designating the territorial area as a state.

Finally, the President signs the joint resolution approving admission. To petition for statehood, a simple majority is needed, and not an absolute or super majority. In addition, Puerto Rico already has a republican system of government and a local constitution completely compatible with the federal constitution.

Those who oppose Puerto Rico statehood have argued that the amount of time that has passed since we were ceded through the Paris Treaty makes statehood impossible. Nonetheless, history has shown that a mere passing of time should not be an obstacle for statehood. There are a number of states that have delayed considerably in achieving statehood since having been designated territories, including during the expansionist process, like, for example, Alaska(92 years) and Oklahoma (104 years).

Therefore, the passing of time as a colony will not be an obstacle for the granting of statehood. Never in the history of the United States has a territory been denied its petition to become a state.

Puerto Rico becoming a state is simply a question of will.

EL PROCESO HACIA LA ESTADIDAD

Muchos de los mitos en cuanto al proceso para que Puerto Rico se convierta en un estado de los Estados Unidos tratan de impulsar el miedo a la complejidad del proceso como respuesta al porvenir. Sin embargo, ese proceso es más sencillo de lo que se pinta.

El Artículo IV, Sección 3, de la Constitución federal da al Congreso el poder de admitir nuevos estados a la Unión. La Constitución no define, ni especifica, las condiciones para otorgarle la estadidad a un territorio. Por tal razón, el Congreso tiene la libertad de determinar las condiciones para la admisión.

Históricamente, el proceso a seguir para la otorgación de la estadidad es el siguiente: la mayoría de la población del territorio vota a favor de la anexión; el territorio peticiona al Congreso convertirse en estado; el territorio constituye su gobierno según la forma republicana; luego, la Cámara y el Senado federal aprueban una resolución conjunta designando el área territorial como estado.

Y finalmente, el Presidente firma la resolución conjunta aprobando la admisión. Para peticionar la estadidad, sólo se requiere una mayoría de la población y no una mayoría absoluta o supermayoría. Además, ya Puerto Rico cuenta con un sistema republicano de gobierno y una constitución completamente compatible con la federal.

Algunos detractores de la estadidad para Puerto Rico han señalado que el lapso de tiempo que ha transcurrido desde que fuimos cedidos mediante el Tratado de París imposibilita la estadidad. Sin embargo, la historia nos dice que el mero transcurso del tiempo no debe ser obstáculo para la estadidad. Hay un sinnúmero de estados que se demoraron considerablemente en lograr la estadidad desde que los designaron territorios, incluso en pleno proceso expansionista, como, por ejemplo, Alaska (92 años) y Oklahoma (104 años).

Por tanto, el transcurso del tiempo como colonia no será obstáculo para la consecución de la estadidad. Nunca en la historia de los Estados Unidos se le ha denegado a un territorio su petición de convertirse en un estado.

El que Puerto Rico se convierta en estado es una cuestión de voluntad.

PR Young Dems participate in Remembrance of Labor Leader

2007-11-26T10:32:00.000-08:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

On September 3rd, 2007 Puerto Rico Young Dems participated in a remembrance event for Puerto Rican Labor leader and father of the labor movement on the island, Santiago Iglesias Pantin. This event was organized by the Puerto Rico Senate and its President, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock Hernandez. Flower arrangements were presented and perched onto Santiago Iglesias's memorial statue just steps away from the Puerto Rico state capitol building. Santiago Iglesias Pantín (February 22, 1872 – December 5, 1939) was a Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, a "delegate" or nonvoting member to the United States House of Representatives.
Iglesias was born in A Coruña, Galicia, Spain, where he attended the common schools, and was apprenticed as a cabinet maker. He moved to Cuba and was secretary of the Workingmen Trades Circle in Havana from 1889 to 1896.
Iglesias then moved to Puerto Rico, and was the founder and editor of three labor papers:
Porvenir Social (from 1898 to 1900)
Union Obrera (from 1903 to 1906)
Justicia (from 1914 to 1925)

He was appointed general organizer of the American Federation of Labor for the districts of Puerto Rico and Cuba in 1901, and he was a member of the Puerto Rican Senate from 1917 to 1933. In 1936, he was wounded during an assassination attempt by Puerto Rican Nationalist Party partisans.
Iglesias was elected as a Coalitionist Resident Commissioner on November 8, 1932, and was reelected in 1936 for the term ending January 3, 1941. He served in the 73rd, 74th, 75th, and 76th Congresses, from March 4, 1933 until his death.
He had three sons and eight daughters, including labor activist America Iglesias Thatcher.
Iglesias died in Washington, D.C., and was buried at the San Juan Cemetery, in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Among the hundreds of people that assisted the event were representatives from all labor movements on the island including the Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, and Central Union of Puerto Rico Workers among others.

YDAPR Chapter Congressional District Representative Sammy Rodriguez, YDAPR Chapter Secretary Carlos Catala and YDAPR Press Secretary Carlos Ramos were on hand at this historic event in representation of all young Dems on the island and our nation. Sammy Rodriguez and Carlos Ramos are both members of the National YDA Labor Caucus.

PR Democrat Corner will continue to provide coverage on all of the pending and held Young Democrats of America Puerto Rico Chapter events.

Maggie Martinez announces US Senate Bid!

2007-11-21T12:17:00.000-08:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

Magdalena "Maggie" Martinez will attempt to make history as the first Puerto Rican to be elected to the United States Senate. Martinez, an ex member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives from 1996 to 2000, now sets her sights on becoming a Senator for the great state of Georgia, after having lived there for the past 7 years. Maggie announced her run for the Senate earlier this month in Georgia, yet she made a second announcement in Puerto Rico today at the New Progressive Party headquarters in San Juan.

Among the ex state representative's plans if elected are the following, as expressed by herself:

Honest Government & Open Government
We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government
as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform.
I am committed to real ethics reform and meaningful campaign finance reform that
protect our rights and ensure that elected officials act ethically -- not just within the
law, but within the spirit of the law. I will make sure that an aggressive reform
package enters in effect to reverse Republican excesses and restore the public trust.
I am committed to immediate change to lead our country in a new direction, to put an
end to Republican business as usual, and to make certain that our nation's leaders
serve the people's interests, not special interests. For me, this commitment spans
our lifetime, as I am elected to represent the people in the U.S. Senate, not the
powerful.
My goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of
government. To do so, I will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics
from every public servant, cut unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, and
establish clear standards that prevent the trading of official business for gifts.

Energy Independence
I will present bills and resolutions to study the possibilities for a cleaner,
greener and stronger America, by reducing our dependence on foreign oil,
eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings
to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in
energy independent technology.
Energy independence puts America in the driver's seat to pursue affordable and
efficient energy solutions that will benefit all Americans, improve America's security,
reduce the burden on American families, and help clean our environment.
American families should not have to pay the price for a “failed national energy
policy”. They deserve an energy policy that creates a cleaner and stronger America
that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and also creates new jobs for American
workers. By clearing the pathways to innovation, investing in our workers and
infrastructure, and providing American consumers with broader, more responsible
choices, my ideas to study the problems the Americans confront will provide the tools
to help move America forward, toward real energy security for the 21st century.

Economic Prosperity and Educational Excellence
We will create jobs that stay in America and restore opportunity for all Americans, starting with raising the
minimum wage, expanding Pell grants and making college tuition tax deductible. We also believe in budget
discipline that reduces our deficit.
I believe that the most effective way to increase opportunity for our families is with a high-quality, good paying job. I
support fair trade agreements that raise standards for all workers here and abroad, while making American
businesses more competitive. We don’t believe in tax giveaways that reward companies for outsourcing, moving
American jobs overseas.
I believe in balancing budgets and paying down our national debt. Republicans continue to put huge burdens on
future generations by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign nations; we want to restore the budget
discipline of the 1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.
As a education advocate, I know that the key to expanding opportunity is to provide every child with a strong
foundation of education. We will also help expand educational opportunities for college by making college tuition tax
deductible, expanding Pell Grants, and cutting student loan interest rates. I will present a resolution to investigate the
reasons school tuition is so expensive, and I will look for other avenues to make education affordable and accessible
to everyone. It is unacceptable to see that approximatly only 25% of the nation's students graduate from college.
(Graduation 2007 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University).
I also want to make a commitment to review the Act "No Child Left Behind" and study the effects of this act in
education and its effectiveness.

Real Security
I will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our
allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland
security begins with hometown security.
As a Democrat I am committed to help establish a plan that is comprehensive, from repairing our military and winning
the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security and ensuring success in Iraq. We will finally prepare America
for the security needs of the 21st Century. We honor the sacrifices of our troops, their families and veterans by
taking good care of them when they come home. Democrats are unwavering in our commitment to keep our nation
safe. For me, homeland security begins with hometown security. That is why we led the fight to create the Department
of Homeland Security and continue to fight to ensure that our ports, nuclear and chemical plants, and other sensitive
facilities are secure. We support the increase in funding for our first responders and programs like COPS in order to
keep our communities safe. We want to close the remaining gaps in our security by enacting the 9/11 Commission
recommendations.

A Health care System that Works for Everyone
I will make sure we join the 36 other industrialized nations in making sure everyone has access to affordable
health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical
research.
United States is one of the wealthiest, most powerful nations in the world, yet it lacks the ability to provide proper
health care for its own citizens. Health care is not affordable for families with low incomes. No one should have to
choose between taking her child to a doctor and paying the rent. Democrats are committed to making sure every
single American has access to an affordable and effective health care plan.
I want to help to fix the disastrous Medicare Part D and ensured that our seniors could afford their prescription drugs.
I also believe in investing in life saving stem cell and other medical research that offers real hope and treatment for
millions of Americans.

Secure Retirement
I will ensure and secure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American,
starting with pension reform, expanding saving incentives and preventing the privatization of social security.
I believe that after a life of hard work, Americans earn a secure retirement. My commitment to protecting the promise
of Social Security is absolute. I recognize that Americans rely on more than just Social Security for a secure and
dignified retirement. As a Democrat I will continue to fight for genuine pension reform that protects employees’
financial security from future Enron-style abuse. We also want to work on new ways to help hard-working Americans
create retirement savings.

Environment
I believe it is our responsibility to protect America's natural resources. The health of our families and the strength of
our economy depend on our stewardship of the environment. I reject the false choice between a healthy economy
and a healthy environment. Farming, fishing, tourism, and other industries require a healthy environment. New
technologies that protect the environment will create new high-paying jobs. A cleaner environment means a stronger
economy. Far too many Americans live in unhealthy environmental conditions. Not to mention the water and
resources crisis we are currently suffering. I will fight to strengthen the laws that ensure we have clean air to breathe
and clean water to drink. Also, by resolution I will ask the Natural Resources Committee to study the water crisis and
possibilities to prevent future problems, and to be vigilant that laws are enforced.
I know that a sensible energy policy is a key to a strong economy, our national security, and a clean environment. I
am committed to the next generation of affordable and renewable energy for the 21st century and to conservation
measures that will immediately reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Civil Rights & Justice
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That's why we’ve worked to pass
every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood
together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. Also, I will be vigilant with the bill that creates the new immigration law
and make sure immigrants are not discriminated in the process.
On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and
remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

Election Reform
A fundamental tenet of our democracy is the right to vote and have that vote counted. I will be vigilant in protecting
this right and ensuring that our voting system is fair for every American.
I am determined to reform the voting system in this country so that it includes verification, accountability, and
accuracy. It is imperative that we modernize election equipment, and guarantee access to polls with common sense
reforms such as Election Day registration, shorter lines, and early voting. I am committed to election reform and will
fight for federal standards that restore confidence in our voting process.

PR Democrat Corner will update and cover each and every event of Maggie Martinez's run for the Senate in detailed fashion. www.maggieforcongress.com Stay Tuned!

Healthcare as a Constitutional Right Approved by the PR Senate!

2007-11-19T14:22:00.000-08:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

On November 8th, 2007, Concurrent Senate Resolution 81, which would facilitate a state endorsed referendum to the people of Puerto Rico in order to elevate healthcare as a constitutional right in Puerto Rico, therefore amending the state constitution, was approved unanimously by the Puerto Rico Senate. This could be a very important step in finally making universal healthcare a reality on the island, especially when a considerate number of Puerto Rican families are unable to afford healthcare insurance due to the economic hardship the island is currently facing, as well as unequal treatment in federal programs such as Medicaid due to the island’s current political status.

At a moment when universal healthcare is a central topic of debate among our nation’s Presidential candidates, the fact that the Puerto Rico legislature has step up to the plate and moved this issue forward, has without a doubt brought hope to thousands of families in Puerto Rico that are desperately in need of quality healthcare. This piece of legislation sponsored by a group of New Progressive Party Senators and headed by Democratic ex governor Pedro Rossello, has secured the people of Puerto Rico with the opportunity to amend the island’s local constitution on May 4th, 2008 and finally establish healthcare as a right, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

This historic event will undoubtedly mark and define the well being of the island’s healthcare system for future generations in Puerto Rico. PR Democrat Corner will offer exclusive coverage on the day of such a historical referendum!

Meet John Edwards

2007-10-27T19:53:00.000-07:00

By: Phillip Arroyo

Young, Charismatic, Good looking and from the south! Sounds like a southern Kennedy huh? Well, John Edwards may just be the Democratic Party's "South Factor" candidate who can very well pick up various red states in the south in route to bringing our party back to victory in 2008. Let us remember the fact that since John F. Kennedy's presidency, all elected Democrat Presidents were from the south. Lyndon B Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Bill Clinton were all from the south.

Many may argue that Edwards did not do so good in the south in his race for Vice President , by even losing his own state of North Carolina. Yet, let us remember that Senator Edwards' campaign may well have been shadowed by his Presidential running mate, Senator John Kerry. Now, in his campaign for President, his biggest obstacle seems to be in the fundraising area as he trails significantly behind both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. Yet, equipped with the all American image, a good campaign team, and a consistently appealing " roll up your sleeves and let's do it ourselves" message , only time will tell if John will be able to come out on top in the primary. If he does, there are few who doubt that he will most certainly be our next President, for his biggest obstacle seems to be the Democratic Party Primary.