I heard about this this morning through the Tea Party Network I'm a part of. And not surprisingly, they heard about it through Glenn Beck.
Now I like Glenn quite a lot. I think he's on the right track. Sometimes he gets off on things where I think he's barking down a side-trail, but he eventually comes back and continues in the right direction with (mostly) the right arguments.
At first, it sounded like the argument being made was that the bill had stuff in it to allow illegal aliens and felons to vote. Which wouldn't shock me considering all the crap stuffed into "teh" Health Care Bill that didn't have anything to do with Health Care.
But when I read the bill ... and it's a short, sweet one ... I wasn't too alarmed. And I'm not sure how alarmed I should be about this bit in particular. After all, I think if Puerto Rico wants to vote to be a state... well then let 'em vote. Deal is, they already can. So why this "non-binding" bill? Why now?
So I decided to let Glenn make his case and do some followup research on my own. And this is what I came up with.
There’s nothing in the bill about illegal aliens voting, or felons or prisoners voting. And Glenn didn't say that there was. He was putting this bill in a larger context.
There has been a push in the past to allow Washington DC and Puerto Rican representatives to vote in Congress.
There are also progressive organizations working with the Democratic party to get illegal aliens the vote, because they figure those votes will break their way. And you’ve got progressive organizations like the Center for American Progress … all a part of the Obama coalition … working to get felons the vote. It’s a massive community organizing effort to get votes behind the progressive party. Which right now for the most part is synonymous with the Democratic party.
But it’s not all a part of the bill. Getting statehood for Puerto Rico is just one part of a strategy to secure a permanent majority for the progressive movement. It’s just one prong, and I don’t see where we should be fighting against admitting another state to the union. I don’t have a problem with that.
Of course, none of this would matter if we still went back to the Constitution as to what role government is to play in our lives. But the general Cloward-Piven plan is to get enough people on the government dole that they 1) continue to support the government dole, and 2) would support a move to a different form of government that would guarantee their place on the government dole if an “emergency” came up. You know. Like the insolvency of the country or something.
Right now, at this moment, Puerto Rico is largely run by the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (NPP). So it’s a good chance that if they seated congressfolk, they would add to the US’s current supermajority. So they want it NOW because they like the probable result. They wouldn’t be pushing for it if it were some conservative party in control. So it’s not wrong … it’s just a danger to our republic at this time because of the current dynamic, and the current dynamic is in favor of a Fundamental Transformation.
But if they have a progressive majority long enough, they can increase the number of people on the government dole. We’re (as a country) about half and half progressive/conservative in the last several elections. They only need to push it a little.
This is why I think the answer is to speak up calmly, firmly, and rationally and convince our friends, one at a time if need be, to at least question their premises and understand what our founding ideals were and what was good about them. We have a cultural crisis -- one that has been nurtured by progressives. And it manifests itself at the polls. We have to convince actual voters, not politicians and government officials.
Now basically, the danger of the bill according to Glenn is that it is designed as part of a plan by the NPP. He’s saying that currently in Puerto Rico there’s about 43% who want to be a state, 20% want to be independent, and about 27% who like things the way they are.
Which means over 60% want …. wait for it …. “Change”.
So the bill lays out the voting this way …
Do you want to stay the way we are, or do you want ‘change’? Vote … 60/40 – “Change”.
Now status quo is off the table.
Do you want to be independent, or do you want to be a state?
Well now you split the status-quo vote, and it’s a choice between losing the sweet deal of being a United States Commonwealth … they’re betting they can get at least 8% of the remaining 27% (probably a lot more) to vote “State”.
Two more Progressive senators and another progressive congressman or two.
It’s a numbers game. Divide, conquer. Get the result you want. Then do what you want and claim a mandate. It’s been done before, at least the accellerated congressional seating plan. Twice. The Tennesee Plan. Not saying it’s wrong or right. But it gets them the results they want, and they don’t feel constrained by the Constitution. They want to … fundamentally transform it. And that's been done before, too. Generally in places that elected people who ended up being dictators.
Mr. Beck says tonight he's going to show some of the NPP campaign ads from Puerto Rico and show that the Tennesee Plan is, in fact, the plan. We'll see.