Engineered consent

According to the propagandist Edward Bernays when discussing public relations techniques that were described in his essay and book The Engineering of Consent (1955), the public may be manipulated by its subconscious desires to render votes to a political candidate. Consent thus obtained undermines the legitimacy of government. Bernays claimed that "the basic principle involved is simple but important: If the opinions of the public are to control the government, these opinions must not be controlled by the government."^[14]

Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in their book, Manufacturing Consent (1988), advanced a propaganda model for the news media in the United States^[15] in which coverage of current events was skewed by corporations and the state in order to manufacture the consent of the governed.

Puerto Rico's Statehood Plan Revealed

RokStories

Puerto Rico's Statehood Plan Revealed
By Jose A. Hernandez-Mayoral

The author is the secretary of Federal and International Affairs
for the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico.

A seemingly innocent bill before the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee is the centerpiece of a Puerto Rico statehood plan. On its face, H.R. 2499 simply calls for a non-binding expression by Puerto Rican voters on their political status preference. Behind the innocuousness, however, lies a fully thought-out assault on Congress to designate the island the 51st state.

H.R. 2499 builds upon two earlier failures for statehood. In 1993, after a landslide victory in the general elections, the pro-statehood governor called for a plebiscite expecting his personal popularity to translate into a similar win for statehood. The governor allowed each of the parties to decide how their status option would appear defined on the ballot. To his surprise, the island’s current commonwealth status won with 48.6 percent of the vote, to 46.5 percent for statehood and 4.4 percent for independence.

Pledging not to let that happen again, the governor called for a new plebiscite in 1998, but this time he drafted the commonwealth ballot definition himself -- and in such unpalatable terms that the commonwealth party could not endorse it. To the governor’s dismay, the commonwealth party asked supporters to vote instead for a “none of the above” option. Commonwealth (“none of the above”) prevailed again with 50.3 percent of the vote against statehood’s 46.5 percent and independence’s 2.5 percent.

Today, still smarting from that defeat, the statehood party has a new scheme.

H.R. 2499, authored by Puerto Rico’s pro-statehood delegate to Congress, splits a new vote into two rounds. The first stipulates a yes-or-no vote on the “current political status.” But if the current status doesn’t attain 50 percent, there would be a second vote including all other options.

What is at play with this legislation is the railroading of a self-determination process. Take the 1993 numbers, for example. Commonwealth status was supported with 48.6 percent of the vote. It was preferred over all other status options. Under H.R. 2499, an identical result would eliminate the commonwealth option and force voters to a second round limited to the options that have come in second, third and fourth in previous plebiscites. With the commonwealth option out of the ballot, statehood is finally, albeit crookedly, assured a victory.

The "none of the above” option can no longer foil a statehood majority as it did in 1998. That was a judicially-mandated option based on constitutional grounds regarding an individual’s right to vote. But the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s ideological composition changed when the new pro-statehood governor filled three vacancies, so a 4-3 majority has reversed the earlier ruling requiring this option. “None of the above” wouldn’t be on the ballot.

While Puerto Rico’s delegate is selling H.R. 2499 to his colleagues in Congress as a non-binding plebiscite, his party’s 2008 platform (page 179) declares that after statehood wins, it will use all strategies including a Tennessee-type scenario to force Congress into admitting Puerto Rico as a state.

What is the Tennessee reference? It involves a territorial census in 1795 that revealed a clear majority for Tennessee statehood. The governor -- after calling for a constitutional convention wherein Tennessee leaders “converted” the territory into a state-- applied to Congress for admission by sending the elected senators and representatives to stand in the hallways demanding their seats. Confused and divided over Tennessee’s move, Congress admitted Tennessee as a state in 1796.

The Puerto Rico statehood party is planning a similar coup. It will use the plebiscite’s artificial and anti-democratic results to initiate a “civil rights movement,” electing two senators and seven representatives, who will then travel to Washington and demand their “seats” in Congress.

Don’t be fooled: H.R. 2499 is a classic wolf in sheep’s clothing – and must be stopped.

The political status of Puerto Rico is that of an unincorporated territory of the United States officially known as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Spanish: Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, lit. 'Free Associated State of Puerto Rico'). As such, the island of Puerto Rico is neither a sovereign nation nor a U.S. state. It is because of that ambiguity, the territory, as a polity, lacks certain rights but enjoys certain benefits that other polities have or lack. For instance, in contrast to U.S. states, Puerto Rico residents cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections nor can they elect their own senators and representatives to the U.S. Congress. On the other hand, in contrast to U.S. states, only some residents of Puerto Rico are subject to federal income taxes.^[a] The political status of the island thus stems from how different Puerto Rico is politically from sovereign nations and from U.S. states.

Pursuant to a series of Supreme Court rulings, Congress decides whether a territory is incorporated or unincorporated. The U.S. Constitution applies to each incorporated territory (including its local government and inhabitants) as it applies to the local governments and residents of a state. Incorporated territories are considered to be integral parts of the U.S., rather than possessions.^[7]^[132]

In unincorporated territories, "fundamental rights apply as a matter of law, but other constitutional rights are not available", raising concerns about how citizens in these territories can influence politics in the United States.^[133] Selected constitutional provisions apply, depending on congressional acts and judicial rulings according to U.S. constitutional practice, local tradition, and law.^{[citation needed]} As a result, these territories are often considered colonies of the United States.^[134]^[135]

In Glidden Company v. Zdanok, the Court cited Balzac and said about courts in unincorporated territories: "Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland ... and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries".^[146]^: 547 The judiciary determined that incorporation involves express declaration or an implication strong enough to exclude any other view, raising questions about Puerto Rico's status.^[147]

In 1966, Congress made the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico an Article III district court. This (the only district court in a U.S. territory) sets Puerto Rico apart judicially from the other unincorporated territories, and U.S. district judge Gustavo Gelpí has expressed the opinion that Puerto Rico is no longer unincorporated:

The court ... today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one. Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees. To hold otherwise, would amount to the court blindfolding itself to continue permitting Congress per secula seculorum to switch on and off the Constitution.^[148]

In Balzac, the Court defined "implied":^[145]^: 306

Had Congress intended to take the important step of changing the treaty status of Puerto Rico by incorporating it into the Union, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have done so by the plain declaration, and would not have left it to mere inference. Before the question became acute at the close of the Spanish War, the distinction between acquisition and incorporation was not regarded as important, or at least it was not fully understood and had not aroused great controversy. Before that, the purpose of Congress might well be a matter of mere inference from various legislative acts; but in these latter days, incorporation is not to be assumed without express declaration, or an implication so strong as to exclude any other view.

Glenn Beck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"This is a vote about freedom."

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

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

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

So what's the trick?

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

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

See the trick?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• They elected delegates for Congress

• They voted on statehood

• They drafted a state constitution

• And applied for statehood

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

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

Again, the Tennessee plan in a nutshell:

• Unsuccessfully petitioning Congress for admission

• Drafting a state constitution without prior congressional intervention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Progressive Democrats run a political agenda with statehood for Puerto Rico

Today, Congress is said to vote on a bill [HR 2499] that will begin the process for Puerto Rico to gain statehood.

If Puerto Rico becomes a state, Democrats will gain roughly 12 million new voters, 2 Senate seats, and 6 House of Representative seats through expanding the Hispanic bloc vote. Sadly, race politics continues to be the Democrats' bread & butter for re-election.

Since 1967, Puerto Ricans have voted 3 times on referendums for statehood in the U.S. Each time, they voted "No," choosing to remain a territory. For Progressives in both the continental U.S. and Puerto Rico, the phrase, "The people have spoken," means nothing. They're going to use an expedited approach, the Tennessee Plan, to finally achieve statehood.

This new process begins with the bill, "Puerto Rico Democracy Act" [HR 2499]. It is designed to change the previously asked question of Puerto Ricans, "Do you want Puerto Rico to become a U.S. state?" to, "Should Puerto Rico change their political status?"

In our heated political tug-of-war, who wouldn't want to "change their political status?" That's what's going on globally: a desire to change the status quo of political situations!

Democrats are banking on this sentiment. If the majority of voters say they want to change the political status of Puerto Rico (whatever that means can vary person to person,) then Congress will issue another vote. This time the option for Puerto Rico's current relationship with the U.S. will be removed --leaving only 3 options:

1) Independence
2) Sovereignty in Association with the United States (Dissolves the impoverished territory's current financial aid agreements.)
3) Statehood

If the majority of voters initially decide not to change their political status, then every 8 years they will be asked again.

Who is forcing Puerto Rico's hand?

The New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico.

According to Progressives at PuertoRicoUSA.com, "Statehood will complete the full rights and benefits package of American Citizenship...In addition new and expanded social programs will benefit those that need it the most, the poor. "

The entire "state" of Puerto Rico will become a drain on our welfare system as it will be requiring redistributed funds from other states. They admittedly, "cannot grow economically at an adequate rate as a territory or commonwealth."

Do we really need more on the dole, right now? America has record-breaking deficits of over $1 trillion a year, over $100 trillion in debt from unfunded liabilities, and an economy in collapse.

America should be starting drastic spending cuts, not sacrificing its citizens and their money for political gain.

Update: HR 2499 passed in the House on April 29, 2010.

HISTORY.COM

Raquel Reichard

Updated: July 12, 2023 | Original: September 7, 2021

Becoming a US Territory

Under the United States, a military government was established and it ruled the territory until April 12, 1900, when a civilian government was created under the Foraker Act. Before the 20th century, the U.S. government granted statehood to lands it acquired as it expanded mostly westward and southward on the American continent. However, Puerto Rico was designated an “unincorporated territory.”

According to Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus, professor of legal history at Columbia Law School, some American legislators feared that racial mixing would occur among white Americans in the contiguous United States and non-white Puerto Ricans if Puerto Rico were admitted as a state. Puerto Ricans were restricted to limited self-governance—under a U.S.-appointed governor—and did not have U.S. citizenship.

Pro-independence movements on the island continued to call for autonomy. To quell tensions, in 1917, the U.S. passed the Jones-Shafroth Act, which gave most Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship—but with limitations. Under the act, a senate and bill of rights was established; however, the U.S. president and Congress still had the power to veto Puerto Rican laws. The Selective Service Act, meanwhile, required men in the United States—including Puerto Rico—to register for military service. During World War I, nearly 20,000 Puerto Rican men fought on behalf of the United States.

More than three decades later, in 1950, the United States allowed Puerto Rico to draft a constitution, as long as it did not alter its territorial status and established a republican form of government and a bill of rights. After the Legislature of Puerto Rico held a constitutional convention to draft the constitution, it was approved by the president and Congress in 1952. Under the new constitution, Puerto Rico was designated the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Commonwealth vs. Free Associated State

Decades after adopting the status of commonwealth, there remains confusion around what the classification means. Early adopters believed the designation would give Puerto Rico a special legal status that wasn't a state, independent country or territory. They surmised that because the island had an elected self-government and a constitution that it was no longer a colony. However, Ponsa-Kraus and other constitutional scholars argue that because the U.S. Congress has power over Puerto Rico’s government, it’s still subordinate to the United States and so effectively remains a colonial territory despite its commonwealth status.

Further complicating the matter of status, the official name of Puerto Rico in Spanish is different from its name in English. In Spanish, the territory is referred to as el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, which translates to a free associated state. Under international law, a free associated state is an independent country that has enhanced association with another country through a treaty. This is also a misnomer since Puerto Rico is not an independent country but rather a U.S. territory.

Puerto Rico's Future

For hundreds of years, the people of Puerto Rico have fought to decolonize the archipelago. However, there has long been division over the best way to resolve this issue: statehood, enhanced commonwealth status (where Puerto Rico is still in a relationship with the United States but given more autonomy) or independence.

According to Ponsa-Kraus, the legal process to admit Puerto Rico into statehood would require just a few steps: the territory adopts a constitution in preparation for statehood, Congress approves it (and may impose some additional conditions on the state to ensure it’s in harmony with the larger federalist structure of the United States), and then Congress passes legislation admitting the territory into statehood. Likewise, by simple legislation, Congress can provide for the independence of a territory. Despite its constitutional and legal simplicity, politics make the process complex.

In November 2020, Puerto Ricans voted in a non-binding referendum on statehood. About 53 percent of Puerto Ricans favored statehood, while 47 percent rejected it. However, only 55 percent of Puerto Ricans voted in the referendum. Statehood proponents viewed the results as proof that most Puerto Ricans want the territory to be admitted, but opponents questioned the validity of the votes as referendums are unbinding, often promoted solely by the pro-statehood party and include the opinions of only half of Puerto Ricans. Some people oppose statehood based on the argument that Puerto Rico will assimilate into the United States if it becomes a state.

"Legally speaking, it’s pretty simple," Ponsa-Kraus says. "The battle is over trying to convince people to want statehood or to oppose statehood.”