Movimiento de Reunificación de Puerto Rico y España: MRE EN LA PRENSA INTERNACIONAL

Movimiento de Reunificación de Puerto Rico y España: MRE EN LA PRENSA INTERNACIONAL:   El trabajo hecho enn los últimos 8 meses ha rendido fruto. La noticia de la existencia de nuestro Movimiento ha sido publicada en la ...

Lo and behold it was about time someone will actually do this, as insane and illusory as it sounds.Why? Mr. Seise obviously thinks that this is as simple as going to the local court in Hato Rey and contest a traffic ticket. In order to take the United States to the Hague Court, it will require another member state to file the petition. The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The Court decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction). Puerto Rico is NOT a state member, and good luck getting the government filing the case for them. They will need to piggy back ride their case through an organ of the United Nations sympathetic to this cause. Morally speaking, makes some sense since it would be very interesting in see how the United States can justify their taking of Puerto Rico from Spain by force by the use of the Treaty of Paris of 1898. For those of you who do not know about the Treaty of Paris of 1898, basically the United States, at gunpoint forced Spain to relinquish Puerto Rico, Cuba, Philippines, etc. Long story short, it was the threat of an attack to the Canary Islands and a wide spread war what the United States blackmailed Spain with.

This is  the same United States that was calling for sanctions against Russia for intervening in Crimea. Just with this slight difference: Over 90% of the population in Crimea are ethnic Russians, plus at least they got to vote on it. In 1898, 90% of the population of Puerto Rico were ethnic Spaniards, and they did not had the luxury of a vote on the matter. Thanks "Uncle Sam", for the convenient hypocrisy.

Realistically, the Reunificacionistas will need a majority of the legal registered voters to advance their cause. If it too 114 years for the Puerto Rico Statehood sympathizers to finally obtain a majority of voters to vote for Statehood in 2013, what makes anyone believe that this movement will achieve any kins of majority within the next 4 years? After all, Congress already legislated a referendum for Puerto Rico to decide among options that Congress already considered are the best possibilities for the Puertorican people to vote on. None of those options include Return to Spain, and if it does by an amendment of the Congressional act, it will doubtful get a pluralistic or significant amount of votes as to make a difference.

In other words Mr. Seise, if it is not in the ballot, the Hague Tribunal cannot undo the will of a majority of voters, just because you want to. Who said we are not allowed to dream? We can, and Mr.Seise has proven to be a resilient dreamer a la Don Quixote.

Attention Netanyahu and Abbas: Some common sense advise for the two of you...

This exert is a comment made at a blog concerning the Middle East Peace process. Whoever this Allan guy is, certainly deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.

"To make the Two State offer, Israel must ignore its own fanatical religious “every inch of Israel was given to us by God” extremists. Now, the Palestinians have to ignore their own “Every inch of Palestine is Muslim holy land” extremists. Then finally peace will have a chance." Posted by: Allan | May 15, 2014 at 12:08 PM

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2014/05/video-breslov-hasidim-burn-israeli-flag-in-uman-456.html

The perils of U.S. moral superiority complex

Kerry: US, intl community won't recognize outcome of Crimea vote on secession from Ukraine

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2014/03/14/west-readying-sanctions-after-crimea-vote

Crimea's are 90% ethnic Russians. Crimea's took a democratic vote (as much as the U.S. and it's minions refuse to believe) to secede from Ukraine and annexation with none other than their natural partner, Russia.

Of course, democratic votes are as good as the government taking such a vote, per the U.S.A. Our country loves to export our democratic model throughout the planet, and if possible throughout the confines of the universe. Yet, when such model is used against the so called U.S. interests, then the U.S. simply refuses to recognize the democratic process and replies back with...sanctions. Convenient hypocrisy, or moral superiority complex?

A good "memory refresher" for our friends in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans: The 1898 Treaty of Paris that brought to an end of the short lived Spanish-American war. The Spanish-American War had an overwhelming U.S. public support due to the popular fervor towards supporting Cuban freedom (and of course furthering U.S. economic interests overseas) The U.S. was especially interested in developing developing and having a stake in the sugar industry in Cuba.The U.S. military even resorted to falsifying reports in the Philippines in order to maintain public support for U.S. involvement abroad. Sounds familiar? Iraq 2003 anyone? The U.S. justified its participation in the war based on the principles of Manifest Destiny and expansionism, proclaiming that it was America’s fate and its duty to take charge in these overseas nations. 


Basically, at gunpoint, the United States forced Spain to relinquish the Philippines, Cuba and, Puerto Rico (this one not being a major point of interest, but since it was an all inclusive package, why not?)  During the Senate debate to ratify the treaty, Senators George Frisbie Hoar and George Graham Vest were outspoken opponents of the treaty.

This Treaty will make us a vulgar, commonplace empire, controlling subject races and vassal states, in which one class must forever rule and other classes must forever obey.

—Senator George Frisbie Hoar

Some anti-expansionists stated that the treaty committed the United States to a course of empire and violated the most basic tenets of the United States Constitution. They argued that neither the Congress nor the President had the right to pass laws governing colonial peoples who were not represented by law-makers.

With the takeover of Puerto Rico, a territory that was 99% ethnic Spanish, the United States began a campaign of "Americanization". Did the United Sates gave the people of Puerto Rcio the chance to vote on this idea? No. On the contrary, it was forced deculturization. In 1899, U.S. Senator George Frisbie Hoar, the same one who first criticized the Treaty of Paris of 1898, had a sudden change of heart and  described Puerto Ricans as "uneducated, simple-minded and harmless people who were only interested in wine, women, music and dancing" and recommended that Spanish should be abolished in the island’s schools and only English should be taught.Schools became the primary vehicle of Americanization, and initially all classes were taught in English, which also made for a large dropout rate. Thank you Senator!!

In 1901, the first civilian U.S. governor of Puerto Rico, Charles Herbert Allen, installed himself as president of the largest sugar-refining company in the world, the American Sugar Refining Company. This company was later renamed as the Domino Sugar company. In effect, Charles Allen leveraged his governorship of Puerto Rico into a controlling interest over the entire Puerto Rican economy.By 1930, over 40 percent of all the arable land in Puerto Rico had been converted into sugar plantations, which were entirely owned by Charles Allen and U.S. banking interests. These bank syndicates also owned the entire coastal railroad, and the San Juan international seaport; land grab anyone?

Of course, it was all advancing U.S. interests in the Caribbean, so it was morally acceptable to become a colonizing nation, the same thing Washington and his cronies so much detested from the Brtish some 122 years earlier.

Now, 115 years later, this same Nation, the United States objects to the peaceful secession of Crimea from Ukraine by a democratic vote of the Crimean people and its annexation to Russia. A luxury not afforded by the people of Puerto Rico...Thank you uncle Sam!

References:

Safa, Helen (March 22, 2003). "Changing forms of U.S. hegemony in Puerto Rico: the impact on the family and sexuality". Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development. Retrieved 2007-08-03.

Harvey, S.S. (February 22, 1899). "Americanizing Puerto Rico". New York Times. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-08-03.

History repeats itself, as recently as not even one decade apart

Iran boasts that it is a signatory of the NPT, and uses that rationale to justify its nuclear program for peaceful purposes. Many states, and many analysts and pundits claim that as such , the State of Israel is overreacting and being paranoid over the recent agreement with the P5+1, exchanging modest sanctions for a reduction in their nuclear work. Is Israel really overreacting as a paranoid state and having a tantrum over the World's inability to listen to their concerns? Let us first look back in our recent history and see what it has to tell us. 

The NPT is often seen to be based on a central bargain: “the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

Being a signatory to the NPT is meaningless, as good as used toilet paper. Let me refresh the P5 + 1 dull memory...North Korea was a signatory of the NPT, they ratified it in 1985. What happened in 2003? They announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. We all know what happened afterwards. 

North Korea ratified the treaty on 12 December 1985, but gave notice of withdrawal from the treaty on 10 January 2003 following U.S. allegations that it had started an illegal enriched uranium weapons program, and the U.S. subsequently stopping fuel oil shipments under the Agreed Framework.

 Under the 1994 Agreed Framework, the U.S. government agreed to facilitate the supply of two light water reactors to North Korea in exchange for North Korean disarmament. which had resolved plutonium weapons issues in 1994. The withdrawal became effective 10 April 2003 making North Korea the first state ever to withdraw from the treaty. North Korea had once before announced withdrawal, on 12 March 1993, but suspended that notice before it came into effect.On 10 February 2005, North Korea publicly declared that it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out of the six-party talks hosted by China to find a diplomatic solution to the issue. "We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have manufactured nuclear arms for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]," a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement said regarding the issue.



On 10 February 2005, North Korea publicly declared that it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out of the six-party talks hosted by China to find a diplomatic solution to the issue. "We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have manufactured nuclear arms for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]," a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement said regarding the issue.. (In other words to complete the construction and development of their first bomb, which will be detonated soon after.) On the next day North Korea reiterated its known view that until it is supplied with a light water reactor it will not dismantle its nuclear arsenal or rejoin the NPT.On 2 October 2006, the North Korean foreign minister announced that his country was planning to conduct a nuclear test "in the future", although it did not state when.On Monday, 9 October 2006 at 01:35:28 (UTC) the United States Geological Survey detected a magnitude 4.3 seismic event 70 km (43 mi) north of Kimchaek, North Korea indicating a nuclear test. The North Korean government announced shortly afterward that they had completed a successful underground test of a nuclear fission device. In 2007, reports from Washington suggested that the 2002 CIA reports stating that North Korea was developing an enriched uranium weapons program, which led to North Korea leaving the NPT, had overstated or misread the intelligence.

It does not take a Ph.D in political sciences to realize Iranians are using the North Korea play book.
 In other words...why anyone with reasonable intelligence would not think that Iran will do EXACTLY the same? Buying time with "negotiations" that they well know, as much as any reasonable person knows after the North Korean program, are being help to complete the development and test of their first nuclear weapon and create a new arms race throughout the entire already volatile Middle East.

But what does President Barack Hussein Obama cares of? Being first? Being the First colored president of the United States of America, being the first recipient of a Nobel Peace prize even though he had NEVER done anything significant to promote or advance peace at a Global scale.  And now is trying to be the First President to broke a deal between Israelis and Palestinians and achieve the illusory TWO-STATE solution, and of course, be the First U.S. President to "normalize" diplomatic relations with Iran.

That is what the American people elected, not once, but twice,  A man who only cares to be in the annals of history as the First to achieve anything of any kind of significance or transcendence.

Credit for the information provided in this article goes to Wikipedia and their well credited references at the bottom of each article. My opinions are stated in Italics.

Republican Civil War Erupts: Business Groups v. Tea Party

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-18/republican-civil-war-erupts-business-groups-v-tea-party.html

  Scott Reed, senior political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said “The need is now more than ever to elect people who understand the free market and not silliness.”

We wish it was only silliness. The problem with the Tea Part group is that it is composed  primarily by ideologue fanatics, no different from their Islamic extremist fanatics. In this instance, the Tea Party members preferred to launch the Nations credit rating into a spiral, which as a consequence would have brought in catastrophic effects on the world economies. But, what else to expect from a group that denies sciences and are bent on simply oppose anything that the current Administration brings in to the table? What else you can expect of a group composed of Extreme Right Wing Christian fanatics who want to trigger an Apocalyptic event that will bring the advent of the alleged "savior" of mankind? This is the tragedy of religious fanaticism when they are empowered with enough money to buy candidates and put them on key positions of our Constitutional Government. May G-d definitely have mercy upon us, those who prefer to find middle ground and compromise for the sake of our Country as a whole, not for the sake of one fringe ideal and the group that represents them.

Obama et al. "civil rights" leadrers mum

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/08/jackson-sharpton-stay-silent-on-school-bus-beating/

"Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who both blasted Florida in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting and the acquittal of George Zimmerman in Martin's death, with Jackson calling it an "apartheid state" and "our Selma," have not spoken publicly of the brutal beating aboard a school bus caught on cellphone and surveillance video."

Neither has Mr. Obama who, as we all know made a press conference on the Zimmerman matter a few days after the controversial verdict. Of course, it is politically correct for African Americans to assault and batter Caucasians.

Obama is giving Putin the cold shoulder

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/08/obama-cancels-meeting-with-putin-amid-snowden-tensions/

"President Obama is giving Vladimir Putin the cold shoulder, canceling plans to meet with the Russian president next month amid tensions over the decision to grant NSA leaker Edward Snowden temporary asylum. "

Although it can be said that the Snowden incident is the last straw on a series of  disagreements between the leaders of the 2 most powerful nations. Being the support the Kremlin has given to the Assad regime in the Syrian war  on the top of the list.

Kudos to Mr. Obama for this decision, a line had to be drawn, and he just did that.