By Wild Hedetic
There are two good essays against geocentricism by Alec MacAndrew, and Steven Dutch of the University of Wisconsin. Since we have proven beyond any doubt that heliocentric theory is false, the below arguments against geocentricism may prove useful in eliminating certain geocentric models and allow us to get a bit closer to the truth; so let’s begin.
4. Stellar Parallax
5. Geocentrism Violates The Laws of Physics
6. Geocentrism Violates Its Own Rules
Some Background Information:
With the world preoccupied by the war in Europe:
- Stalin violated the Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact by invading Poland in 1939
- Stalin violated the Soviet-Finnish Non-Aggression Pact by invading Finland in 1939
- Stalin violated a provision of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact (Ribbentrop-Molotov) by invading Lithuania in 1940
- Stalin grabbed a piece of eastern Romania in 1940
Hitler believed that Stalin, in secret collaboration with the British, was planning to totally break the Soviet-German Non Aggression Pact by launching a massive surprise attack upon anti-Communist Germany.
The Führer to the German People: 22 June 1941
After long months when I was forced to keep silent, despite heavy concerns, the time has come when I can finally speak openly.
When the German Reich received England’s declaration of war on 3 September 1939, the British attempted once again to frustrate any attempt to begin a consolidation, and thus a strengthening, of Europe by fighting the then strongest power on the Continent.
England formerly destroyed Spain through many wars.
For the same reason it waged its wars against Holland.
With the help of all of Europe it later fought France.
(left) Napoleon had actually made peace with Tsar Alexander I of Russia.
(right) It was British intrigue that later brought Russia back into Britain’s war against Napoleon; with disastrous results for France.
Hitler (continued): Germany was defeated in 1918 only because of its inner disunity. The results were terrible. After first hypocritically declaring to be fighting only against the Kaiser and his regime, they began the systematic destruction of the German Reich after the German army had laid down its arms. As the prophecy of a French statesman, who had said that there were twenty million Germans too many, began to be fulfilled through starvation, disease, or emigration, the National Socialist movement began building the unity of the German people, thereby preparing the rebirth of the Reich.
This new revival of our people from poverty, misery, and shameful contempt was a sign of a pure internal rebirth. England was not affected, much less threatened, by this. Nonetheless, it immediately renewed its hateful policy of encirclement against Germany. Both at home and abroad, we faced the plot we all know about between Jews and democrats, Bolshevists and reactionaries, all with the same goal: to prevent the establishment of a new people’s state, to plunge the Reich again into impotence and misery.
The hatred of this international world conspiracy was directed not only against us, but also against those peoples who also had been neglected by Fortune, who could earn their daily bread only through the hardest struggle. Italy and Japan above all, alongside Germany, were almost forbidden to enjoy their share of the wealth of the world. The alliance between these nations was, therefore, only an act of self-defense against a threatening, egotistical world coalition of wealth and power.
As early as 1936, according to the testimony of the American General Wood to a committee of the American House of Representatives, Churchill had said that Germany was becoming too strong again, and that it therefore had to be destroyed.
In summer 1939, England thought that the time had come to renew its attempts to destroy Germany by a policy of encirclement. Their method was to begin a campaign of lies. They declared that Germany threatened other peoples. They then provided an English guarantee of support and assistance, next, as in the World War, let them march against Germany.
Thus between May and August 1939, England succeeded in spreading the claim throughout the world that Germany directly threatened Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Bessarabia, and even the Ukraine. Some of these nations allowed themselves to be misled, accepting the promises of support that were offered, and thereby joined the new attempt to encircle Germany.
Under these circumstances, I believed that I was called by my conscience, and by the history of the German people, to assure not only these nations and their governments that these British accusations were untrue, but also to reassure the strongest power in the East through formal declarations that our interests did not conflict.
You probably all felt that this was a bitter and difficult step for me. The German people have never had hostile feelings toward the peoples of Russia. During the last two decades, however, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have attempted to set not only Germany, but all of Europe, aflame. Germany has never attempted to spread its National Socialist world-view to Russia. Rather, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have constantly attempted to subject us and the other European peoples to their rule. They have attempted this not only intellectually, but above all through military means.
The results of their efforts, in every nation, were only chaos, misery, and starvation.
I, on the other hand, have tried for two decades to build a new socialist order in Germany, with a minimum of interference and without harming our productive capacity. This has not only eliminated unemployment, but also the profits of labor have flowed increasingly to working people.
The results of our policies are unique in all the world. Our economic and social reorganization has led to the systematic elimination of social and class barriers, with the goal of a true people’s community.
The results of the treaty, which I sought in the interests of the German people, were particularly severe for Germans living in the affected nations.
Over half a million German people’s comrades — all of them small farmers, craftsmen, and workers — were forced, almost overnight, to leave their former homes to escape a new government that threatened them with vast misery, and sooner or later, with complete extermination (Ausrottung).
Even so, thousands of Germans disappeared! It was impossible to learn what had happened to them, or even where they were. More than 160 of them were men holding German citizenship.
I kept silent about all this, because I had to keep silent! My wish was for final agreement with this state, and if possible a lasting settlement.
But even during our march into Poland, in violation of the treaty, the Soviet rulers suddenly claimed Lithuania.
The German Reich never intended to occupy Lithuania, and never made any such demand on Lithuania. To the contrary, it turned down the request by the Lithuanian government to send German troops there, since that did not correspond to the goals of German policy.
Nonetheless, I accepted this new Russian demand. But that was only the beginning of ever new demands.
The victory on Poland, gained exclusively by German troops, gave me the occasion to extend a new offer of peace to the Western powers. It was rejected by the international and Jewish warmongers.
The reason was that England still hoped to mobilize a European coalition against Germany that would include the Balkans and Soviet Russia.
The first results were evident in fall 1939 and spring 1940. Russia justified its attempts to subject not only Finland, but also the Baltic states, by the sudden false and absurd claim that it was protecting them from a foreign threat, or that it was acting to prevent that threat. Only Germany could have been meant. No other power could enter the Baltic Sea, or wage war there. I still had to remain silent. The rulers of the Kremlin continued.
Consistent with the so-called friendship treaty, Germany removed its troops far from its eastern border in spring 1940. Russian forces were already moving in, and in numbers that could only be seen as a clear threat to Germany.
According to a statement by Molotov, there were already 22 Russian divisions in the Baltic states in spring 1940.
Although the Russian government always claimed that the troops were there at the request of the people who lived there, their purpose could only be seen as a demonstration aimed at Germany.
As our soldiers attacked French-British forces in the west, the extent of the Russian advance on our eastern front grew ever more threatening.
In August 1940, I concluded that, given the increasing number of powerful Bolshevist divisions, it was no longer in the interests of the Reich to leave the eastern provinces, so often devastated by war, unprotected.
This, however, is exactly what the British and Soviets had hoped. The fact that so much of the German forces, in particular the air force, was tied down in the east made it impossible for the German leadership to bring a radical end to the war in the West.
This was the goal of both British and Soviet Russian policy. Both England and Soviet Russia wanted to prolong this war as long as possible in order to weaken all of Europe and plunge it into ever greater impotence.
Russia’s threatened attack on Rumania was intended not only to take over an important element in the economic life not only of Germany, but of Europe as whole, or at least to destroy it.
With boundless patience, the German Reich attempted after 1933 to win over the southeastern European states as trading partners. We, therefore, had the greatest possible interest in their domestic stability and order. Russia’s entrance into Rumania and Greece’s ties to England threatened to rapidly transform this area into a general battleground.
Despite our principles and customs, and despite the fact that the Rumanian government had brought on these troubles itself, I urgently advised them, for the sake of peace, to bow to Soviet extortion and cede Bessarabia.
The Rumanian government, however, believed that it could justify this step to its own people only if Germany and Italy in return guaranteed the security of its remaining territory. I did this with a heavy heart. When the German government gives a guarantee, it will stand by it. We are neither English nor Jewish.
I thus believed that I had saved peace at the last moment, even if at the cost of a heavy obligation. To reach a final resolution of these problems and to clarify Russian intentions toward the Reich, as well as under the pressure of steadily increasing mobilization along our eastern border, I invited Mr. Molotov to come to Berlin.
The Soviet foreign minister demanded further clarification from Germany on the following four questions:
Molotov’s first question:
Does Germany’s guarantee for Rumania in the event of an attack mean war with Russia in the event of an attack Soviet Russia?
The German guarantee is broad and obligates us absolutely. Russia has never told us that it has any interest in Rumania outside Bessarabia. The occupation of northern Bukowina was already a violation of this assurance. I therefore do not believe that Russia could have any further claims on Rumania.
Molotov’s second question:
Russia feels itself threatened by Finland again. Russia is unwilling to tolerate this. Is Germany ready to provide no support for Finland, and above all to withdraw the German troops in Kirkenes?
As in the past, Germany has no political interests in Finland. However, the German government cannot accept a new Russian war against the tiny Finnish people, particularly since we could never believe that Finland threatens Russia. However, we do not want war in the Baltic Sea.
Molotov’s third question:
Is Germany willing for Soviet Russia to provide a guarantee to Bulgaria, and to send Soviet-Russian troops to Bulgaria for this purpose — although he (Molotov) wished to say that they did not have the intention of removing the king.
Bulgaria is a sovereign state, and I did not know that, just as Rumania had asked for a German guarantee, Bulgaria has asked for one from Soviet Russia. I would also have to discuss the matter with my allies.
Molotov’s fourth question:
Soviet Russia absolutely requires free passage through the Dardanelle, and also demands, for its protection, several important positions on the Dardanelle or along the Bosporus. Is Germany willing to agree to this or not?
Germany is ready at any time to agree to changes in the Statute of Montreux that benefit the Black Sea states. Germany is not willing to approve Russian bases on the straights.
I behaved as the responsible leader of the German Reich, but also as a responsible representative of European culture and civilization.
The result was an increase in Soviet Russian activity against the Reich, above all the immediate beginning of efforts to subvert the new Rumanian state and an attempt to use propaganda to eliminate the Bulgarian government.
With the help of confused and immature people, the Rumanian Legion succeeded in organizing a coup that removed General Antonescu and plunged the nation into chaos. By removing legal authority, they also removed the grounds for Germany to act on its guarantee.
Still, I believed it best to remain silent.
Immediately after this enterprise collapsed, there was a new increase in Russian troops along the German eastern border. Increasing numbers of tank and parachute divisions threatened the German border. The German army, and the German homeland, know that until a few weeks ago, there was not a single German tank or motorized division on our eastern border.
If anyone needed final proof of the carefully hidden coalition between England and Soviet Russia, the conflict in Yugoslavia provided it. While I was making a last attempt to keep peace in the Balkans, and in agreement with the Duce invited Yugoslavia to join the Three Power Pact, England and Soviet Russia organized a coup that toppled the government that was ready for such an agreement.
The German people can now be told that the Serbian coup against Germany was under both the English and Soviet Russian flags. Since we were silent, the Soviet Russian government went a step further. Not only did they organize a Putsch, but signed a treaty of friendship with their new lackeys a few days later that was intended to strengthen Serbia’s resistance to peace in the Balkans, and turn it against Germany. It was no platonic effort, either.
Moscow demanded that the Serbian army mobilize.
Since I still believed that it was better not to speak, the rulers of the Kremlin took a further step.
The German government now possesses documents that prove that, to bring Serbia into the battle, Russia promised to provide it with weapons, airplanes, ammunition, and other war material through Salonika.
That happened at almost the same moment that I was giving the Japanese Foreign Minister Dr. Matsuoka the advice to maintain good relations with Russia, in the hope of maintaining peace.
Only the rapid breakthrough of our incomparable divisions into Skopje and the capture of Salonika prevented the realization of this Soviet Russian-Anglo-Saxon plot. Serbian air force officers, however, fled to Russia and were immediately welcomed as allies.
Only the victory of the Axis powers in the Balkans frustrated the plan of involving Germany in battle in the southeast for months, allowing the Soviet Russian armies to complete their march and increase their readiness for action. Together with England, and with the hoped for American supplies, they would have been ready to strangle and defeat the German Reich and Italy.
Thus Moscow not only broke our treaty of friendship, but betrayed it!
They did all this while the powers in the Kremlin, to the very last minute, hypocritically attempted to favor peace and friendship, just as they had with Finland or Rumania.
I was forced by circumstances to keep silent in the past. Now the moment has come when further silence would be not only a sin, but a crime against the German people, against all Europe.
Today, about 160 Russian divisions stand at our border. There have been steady border violations for weeks, and not only on our border, but in the far north, and also in Rumania. Russian pilots make a habit of ignoring the border, perhaps to show us that they already feel as if they are in control.
During the night of 17-18 June, Russian patrols again crossed the German border and could only be repelled after a long battle.
Now the hour has come when it is necessary to respond to his plot by Jewish-Anglo-Saxon warmongers and the Jewish rulers of Moscow’s Bolshevist headquarters.
At this moment, an attack unprecedented in the history of the world in its extent and size has begun. With Finnish comrades, the victors of Narvik stand by the Arctic Sea. German divisions, under the command of the conqueror of Norway, together with the heroes of Finland’s freedom and their marshal, defend Finnish soil. On the Eastern Front, German formations extend from East Prussia to the Carpathians. From the banks of the Pruth River, from the lower Danube to the Black Sea, German and Romanian soldiers are united under state leader Antonescu.
The purpose of this front is no longer the protection of the individual nations, but rather the safety of Europe, and therefore the salvation of everyone.
I have therefore decided today once again to put the fate of Germany and the future of the German Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers.
May God help us in this battle
The German preemptive strike saved Europe.
The Führer to the German People: 11 December 1941
“Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation of the build-up of Soviet military power in the East during a period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a military build-up of world-historical dimensions was being carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was being threatened, but rather to attack that which seemed incapable of defense … I may say this today: If the wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.”
Millions of Soviet troops were quickly taken prisoner because they were packed along the front line, in OFFENSIVE positions. The Germans then advanced easily across undefended territory. There was so little defense behind the front lines because Stalin was planning an invasion of eastern Europe, NOT a defense of Russia. After the war, the prisoners shown above would be condemned to death in Stalin’s gulags. Stalin declared: “There are no prisoners of war, just traitors.”
The great sacrifice of Germany and the 500,000 foreign SS Waffen volunteers prevented Stalin from taking ALL of Europe.
Only when you fully understand the MONSTROUS LIES told about World War II, can you fully understand the current drive for World War III!
Por: Jose L. Flores
La Isla de Puerto Rico se encuentra actualmente en medio de una crisis económica . Se ha informado de que el gobierno de Puerto Rico le debe más de 70 mil millones de dólares en deuda, sobre todo para los inversionistas que tienen bonos emitidos por el Estado , que viven en los Estados Unidos continentales . Incapaz de pagar una gran suma de la deuda Puerto Rico como ha recurrido ante el Tribunal Supremo de EE.UU. tratando de reestructurar sus obligaciones financieras . Este recurso fue negado rápidamente , provocando con ello el Congreso de EE.UU. para intervenir y tratar de resolver este dilema .
Fue el Comité de Recursos Naturales de la Cámara , que aprobó un proyecto de ley bipartidista que resulta en una adquisición completa de la economía de Puerto Rico . El proyecto de ley pide un descuido de los comités que siete personas para gestionar toda la economía financiera de la isla . Sólo uno de los siete se requiere para ser un residente de Puerto Rico . Cuatro de los seis restantes serán elegidos directamente por el congreso republicano . Los otros tres pueden ser seleccionados por el presidente Obama ; Sin embargo , su elección será a partir de una lista proporcionada por los republicanos de la Cámara . Aparte de esto - económica de la junta, se requieren medidas adicionales de austeridad en la propuesta. Undoubtingly , la austeridad en la cara de la depresión puertorriqueña actual se rechace aún más a la clase trabajadora y los pobres en la isla.
Una respuesta posible y razonable a esta noticia podría ser ; ¿cuál es la condición territorial / estado actual de Puerto Rico ? Los Estados Unidos a menudo se refieren a la isla como ¿Qué nos lleva a otra pregunta interesante " Commonwealth . " ; ¿qué significa ser un estado libre asociado ? Este término legal se deriva de la ley común Inglés , en referencia a un estado independiente , que mantiene su soberanía dentro de una asociación de Estados soberanos similares . Esta definición , sin duda no se aplica a Puerto Rico . Siete personas de toma de decisiones de 3,5 millones es espantoso. El hecho de que son elegidos y nombrados en su mayoría por un cuerpo extraño es exasperante. Ciertamente , esta situación no constituye un estado libre e iguales en una comunidad de Estados libres e iguales. Esta situación constituye el imperialismo , lo que hace que Puerto Rico una colonia formal en un imperio espantosa . Dicho esto , tal vez la relación entre el Rico EE.UU. y Puerto debería ser examinada de nuevo antes de resolver la cuestión de la deuda .
A finales del siglo 19 de una guerra fue inventado por los asesinos en el departamento de guerra EE.UU., con el fin de conquistar las colonias españolas que quedan en América y Asia. Inmediatamente después de la Guerra Española Americana Puerto Rico se encontraba bajo el dominio EE.UU. militar directa. A la vuelta del siglo pasado se fue la Ley Foraker, aprobada por el Congreso de EE.UU., que puso fin al régimen militar. La Ley Foraker permitido para el presidente EE.UU. para nombrar a un gobernador de la isla y nombrar un consejo ejecutivo de once miembros, en congruencia con el Congreso. Sólo cinco de estos miembros estaban obligados a ser de ascendencia puertorriqueña. ¿Suena familiar? Sin embargo, hay algunas diferencias notables con la Ley Foraker. En primer lugar la Ley Foraker permitió la representación de Puerto Puerto más. La segunda diferencia, en el siglo 19 ciudadanos de Estados Unidos no rehúye el término imperialismo y muy a menudo el término abrazó. Fue la polémica de Mark Twain que comenzado a cambiar el idioma y la lengua vernácula, con respecto a las opiniones sobre el imperialismo de los Estados Unidos. Hoy en día el término imperialismo es afortunadamente una mala palabra, pero en Puerto Rico que ha llevado al falso eufemismo "Estado Libre Asociado". Cualquiera que haya tomado un solo curso en la ciencia política sabe definición de la política de Harold Lasswell , " quién obtiene qué , cuándo y cómo . " Puerto Rico está siendo despojado de esas decisiones políticas por la junta económico - propuesta. ¿Cuáles son la legislatura de Puerto Rico y las responsabilidades del gobernador , si es que son despojados de las obligaciones más importantes de un estado ? Puerto Rico no tiene voz en la votación para Presidente de los Estados Unidos , no tienen un solo senador en Washington y que no tienen un miembro del Congreso de EE.UU. Cámara de Representantes . El único representante en Washington es una figura decorativa Comisionado Residente que no pueden votar en las facturas . Como cuestión de hecho, ni siquiera puede votar en las facturas que él mismo propone . Ahora, con la toma de posesión Puerto Rico económica ni siquiera tener voz en el manejo de sus propios asuntos económicos . Como se ha dicho antes de la supervisión de los comités (económica-Junta) es, obviamente, el colonialismo formal. Sin embargo, la más insidiosa 21 imperialismo estilo del siglo, que es la manipulación económica y política, ha tenido lugar en la isla durante décadas también. Por ejemplo, cuando los EE.UU. quiere controlar un país latinoamericano que pasan los llamados "acuerdos comerciales", en connivencia con las elites de ese país en particular. Si no les gusta los líderes en Haití, Honduras, Chile, Venezuela o Brasil los EE.UU. un golpe de estado, financia los grupos de oposición y fomenta las protestas. Si los EE.UU. quiere mantener el dominio militar en el hemisferio o mantener el dominio agrícola en México y Colombia, los EE.UU. simplemente declara una "guerra contra las drogas." ¿Cómo Puerto Rico caen en este imperio del siglo 21? Los bonos municipales emitidos por Puerto Rico fueron triples exenta de impuestos, que las hace atractivas para los no ricos puertorriqueños. El dinero Puerto Rico pedía prestado, en la forma de bonos, estaba siendo utilizado para financiar al gobierno. Como un resultado del gobierno de Puerto Rico estaba gastando más de lo que fue absorbiendo, lo que es toda la premisa de obligaciones emitidas por el estado. Los bonos municipales se basan en las personas prestan dinero al gobierno con la expectativa de ser pagado intereses en una fecha futura. Fue senador puertorriqueño Ángel Rosa, que afirmó que el gobierno de Puerto Rico sólo debe negociar las condiciones de amortización del capital directamente con los inversores. La propuesta de Rosa tiene mucho sentido, especialmente cuando se considera una inversión a largo plazo, como la de los bonos municipales. Es evidente que los inversores se pusieron nerviosos y querían beneficiarse grande antes de que ocurrieran las otras degradaciones crediticias, como sugirió el Presidente del Senado, Eduardo Bhatia. Un crítico mucho más grande, de la minoría Whip Jennifer González se dio cuenta de que esta crisis forjado es sólo una forma de propaganda para aprobar leyes Propaganda o no, ya que el gobierno de EE.UU. es un país de los ricos, por los ricos y para los ricos, la pretensión de las crisis económicas fue aceptada y una junta militar-económica se instalarán rápidamente. El control de la economía de un país por la deuda es una de las formas insidiosas los EE.UU. mantiene su imperio. Un claro ejemplo de esto es la crisis de deuda de la Argentina, que el gobierno argentino ha estado luchando por casi dos décadas. Sin embargo, hay una diferencia importante entre Argentina y Puerto Rico cuando se considera la crisis de la deuda. Argentina es un país y puede apelar a la Corte Internacional de Justicia alegando que Estados Unidos estaba violando su inmunidad soberana. Tenían un Presidente, Sra. Fernández de Kirchner, quien afirmó que no permitiría que Argentina se convierta en una víctima de extorsión. Sra. Fernández decidió por defecto en lugar de pagar la deuda en los términos ridículos de banqueros en Nueva York. la condición colonial de Puerto Rico evita que el discurso jurídico y ejecutivo de Argentina. No fue hace mucho tiempo que California estaba en una enorme crisis de la deuda y la ciudad de Detroit se encontraba en quiebra. Sin embargo, ellos no tienen que someterse a una económica-junta. Este es uno de los hechos simples de California y Michigan son estados soberanos, en una asociación con otros estados soberanos. Tienen representación en el Congreso y gobernadores que ceder el poder real. Lo más importante es si el californiano o las economías de Michigan se pusieron muy mal el gobierno federal sacarlos del apuro. Nadie está proponiendo incluso un rescate de Puerto Rico, el llamado Estado Libre Asociado. Algunos dicen que Puerto Rico fue imprudente y debe sufrir las consecuencias . Sin embargo , Puerto Rico ha estado en una depresión durante 11 años y que actualmente elevado su impuesto sobre las ventas que del 7 al 11 por ciento , sin planes de implementación de programas para los pobres y la clase media . De hecho , Puerto Rico ha estado implementando la austeridad durante más de una década en la dirección de Washington. Cuando Franklin Roosevelt era presidente, en la altura de la depresión, impuestos sobre la renta sobre la tasa máxima fueron de alrededor del 95 por ciento y el New Deal al mismo tiempo se están aplicando . Al inicio de los FDR presidencia hubo alrededor de 22 mil millones de dólares en deuda y cuando salió no había casi 300 mil millones en deuda. ¿Alguien duda de que el progreso de la década de 1950 se debe al presidente más progresista de la historia EE.UU. ? ¿Alguien llama FDR imprudente ? Puerto Rico está recortando los servicios e impuestos ligeramente ascendente , que no es imprudente en absoluto por las normas neoliberales . Es triste que uno diga, pero Puerto Rico no es un estado libre asociado, no es un estado o una nación, es una colonia. Como una colonia que no pueden luchar contra la extorsión como el de Argentina, que no pueden mantener su dignidad y gestionar los asuntos internos como la de California y que no pueden salir de su depresión a la manera de FDR. Puerto Rico debe utilizar esta crisis de la deuda como una oportunidad para convertirse en una nación independiente y soberana. Algunos dicen que Puerto Rico le gusta su estado y en repetidas ocasiones vota para seguir siendo una colonia. Sin embargo, como una mujer maltratadas Puerto Rico debe dejar esta relación. No hay esperanzas de esta relación cada vez mejor, los Estados Unidos continuará abusar de la isla económicamente y siempre prometer por mejores días. La isla necesitará la ayuda y la solidaridad de la comunidad internacional. También necesitará toda la curiosidad y la camaradería de aquellos de nosotros que nos consideramos ciudadanos internacionales. Esta decisión no será una tarea fácil y en algún momento incluso puede haber un impulso para volver a la principal, que debe ser ignorado. No hay nada más liberador continuación, cuando alguien se para sobre los propios pies después de una relación abusiva. Es triste Que uno diga, Pero Puerto Rico No Es Asociado ONU Estado Libre, no hay Es Un estado o de Una Nación, Es Una colonia. Como una colonia Que No pueden Luchar Contra la extorsión Como el de Argentina, Que No pueden mantener su dignidad y Gestionar los Asuntos Internos de Como La De California Y Que no pueden salir de su depresión a la Manera de FDR. Puerto Rico Dębe Como utilizar this crisis de la Deuda Como Una Oportunidad para Convertirse En Una Nación Independiente y Soberana. Dicen que algunos adj Puerto Rico le gusta su estado y en repetidas Ocasiones vota párrafo Seguir Siendo Una colonia. Sin embargo, Como una mujer Maltratadas Puerto Rico Dębe Dejar this relacion. No hay esperanzas of this Relación Cada Vez mejor, los Estados Unidos Continuará abusar de la Isla economicamente Y Siempre prometer por Mejores Días. La isla necesitará la ayuda y la Solidaridad de la comunidad internacional. También necesitará Toda La curiosidad y la camaradería de Aquellos de Nosotros Que Nos consideramos Ciudadanos Internacionales. This DECISIÓN No Será Una Tarea Fácil y EN ALGÚN Momento INCLUSO PUEDE Haber ONU impulso Para Volver a La Principal, Que Dębe Ignorado ser. No hay Nada más liberador Continuación, Cuando alguien se párr Sobre Los Propios empanadas Despues De Una relación abusiva.
The Island of Puerto Rico is currently in the midst of an economic crisis. It has been reported that Puerto Rico’s government owes over 70 billion dollars in debt, mostly to investors holding state issued bonds, living in the continental United States. Unable to repay such a huge sum of debt Puerto Rico has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court attempting to restructure its financial obligations. This appeal was quickly denied, thereby provoking the U.S. Congress to step in and attempt to resolve this dilemma.
It was the House Natural Resources Committee, which passed a bipartisan bill resulting in a complete takeover of Puerto Rico’s economy. The bill calls for an oversight-committee of seven people to manage the entire financial economy of the island. Only one of the seven is required to be a resident of Puerto Rico. Four of the remaining six will be chosen directly by the Republican congress. The other three can be selected by President Obama; however, his choice will be from a list provided by the House Republicans. Aside from this economic-junta, further austerity measures are required in the proposal. Undoubtingly, austerity in the face of the current Puerto Rican depression will further disparage the working class and poor of the island.
A possible and reasonable response to this news could be; what is the current territorial/state status of Puerto Rico? The United States often refer to the island as a “commonwealth.” Which brings up another interesting question; what does it mean to be a commonwealth? This legal term derives from English common-law, referring to an independent state, which maintains its sovereignty within an association of similar sovereign states. This definition certainly does not apply to Puerto Rico. Seven people making decision for 3.5 million is appalling. The fact that they are unelected and mostly appointed by a foreign body is infuriating. Certainly, this situation does not constitute a free and equal state in a community of free and equal states. This situation constitutes imperialism, which makes Puerto Rico a formal colony in a frightful empire. With that said, perhaps the relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico should be reconsidered prior to settling the debt issue.
In the late 19th century a war was concocted by the murderers in the U.S. War Department, in order to conquer the remaining Spanish Colonies in America and Asia. Immediately following the Spanish American War Puerto Rico found itself under direct U.S. Military rule. At the turn of last century is was the Foraker Act, passed by the U.S. Congress, which ended the military rule. The Foraker Act allowed for the U.S. President to appoint a governor for the Island and appoint an eleven-member executive council, in congruence with Congress. Only five of these members were required to be of Puerto Rican heritage. Sound familiar? However, there are some noticeable differences with the Foraker Act. First the Foraker Act allowed for more Puerto Rican representation. The second difference, in the 19th century United States citizens didn’t shy away from the term imperialism and very often embraced the term. It was the polemics of Mark Twain that begun to change the idiom and vernacular, with respect to opinions on imperialism in the United States. Today the term imperialism is thankfully a bad word, but in Puerto Rico it has led to the disingenuous euphemism “commonwealth.”
Anyone who has taken a single course in political science knows Harold Lasswell’s definition of politics, “who gets what, when and how.” Puerto Rico is being stripped of those political decisions by the proposed economic-junta. What are the Puerto Rican legislature and the governor’s responsibilities, if they are stripped of the most important obligations of a state? Puerto Rico does not have a voice in voting for President of the United States, they do not have a single Senator in Washington and they do not have a Congressman in U.S. House of Representatives. The only representative in Washington is a figurehead Resident Commissioner who cannot vote on bills. As a matter of fact, he cannot even vote on bills that he himself proposes. Now with the economic take-over Puerto Rico doesn’t even have a say in managing its own economic affairs.
As stated before the oversight-committee (economic-junta) is obviously formal colonialism. However, the more insidious 21st century style imperialism, which is economic and political manipulation, has been taking place on the Island for decades as well. For example, when the U.S. wants to control a Latin American country they pass so called “trade deals,” in collusion with the elites of that particular country. If they do not like leaders in Haiti, Honduras, Chile, Venezuela or Brazil the U.S. stages a coup, finances opposition groups and foments protests. If the U.S. wants to maintain military dominance in the hemisphere or maintain agricultural dominance over Mexico and Columbia, the U.S. simply declares a “War on Drugs.” How does Puerto Rico fall into this 21st century empire? The municipal bonds issued by Puerto Rico were triple tax exempt, making them attractive to wealthy non-Puerto Ricans. The money Puerto Rico was borrowing, in the form of bonds, was being used to fund the government. As a results the Puerto Rican government was spending more than it was taking in, which is the whole premise of state issued bonds. Municipal bonds are predicated on people lending money to the government with the expectation of being paid interest at a future date. It was Puerto Rican Senator Angel Rosa who stated that the Puerto Rican government should just negotiate the pay-back terms directly with investors. Rosa’s proposal makes perfect sense, especially when considering a long term investment like that of municipal bonds. It is apparent that investors became nervous and wanted to profit big before any other credit downgrades occurred, as the President of the Senate Eduardo Bhatia suggested. A much bigger critic, House Minority Whip Jennifer Gonzalez noticed that this forged crisis is just a form of propaganda to pass draconian laws.
Propaganda or not, since the U.S. government is a country of the rich, by the rich and for the rich, the pretense for economic crises was accepted and an economic-junta will be quickly installed. The control of a country’s economy by debt is one of the insidious ways the U.S. maintains its empire. A clear example of this is Argentina’s debt crises, which the Argentine government has been fighting for almost two decades. However, there is one major difference between Argentina and Puerto Rico when considering the debt crisis. Argentina is a country and can appeal to the International Court of Justice claiming that the United States was violating its sovereign immunity. They had a President, Ms. Fernandez de Kirchner who stated that she would not let Argentina become a victim of extortion. Ms. Fernandez decided to default rather than repay the debt on the ridiculous terms of banksters in New York. Puerto Rico’s colonial status prevents it from Argentina’s legal and executive discourse.
It wasn’t long ago that California was in a huge debt crises and the city of Detroit found itself in bankruptcy. However, they didn’t have to submit to an economic-junta. This is for one simple facts California and Michigan are sovereign states, in an association with other sovereign states. They have Congressional representation and governors who yield actual power. Most importantly if the Californian or the Michigan economies got really bad the federal government would bail them out. No one is even proposing a bailout of Puerto Rico, the so called commonwealth.
Some say Puerto Rico was reckless and must suffer the consequence. However, Puerto Rico has been in a depression for 11 years and they currently raised their sales tax to from 7 to 11 percent, with no plans of implementing programs for the poor and middleclass. In fact, Puerto Rico has been implementing austerity for over a decade at the direction of Washington. When Franklin Roosevelt was president, in the height of the depression, income taxes on the top rate were around 95 percent and the New Deal was simultaneously being implemented. At the start of FDRs presidency there was about 22 billion dollars in debt and when he left there was almost 300 billion in debt. Does anyone doubt that the progress of the 1950s was owed to the most progressive president in U.S. history? Does anyone call FDR reckless? Puerto Rico is cutting services and slightly rising taxes, which is not reckless at all by neo-liberal standards.
It is sad for one to say but Puerto Rico is not a commonwealth, it is not a state or a nation, it is a colony. As a colony they cannot fight against extortion like that of Argentina, they cannot maintain their dignity and manage internal affairs like that of California and they cannot pull out of their depression in the fashion of FDR. Puerto Rico should use this debt crisis as an opportunity to become an independent sovereign nation. Some say that Puerto Rico likes their status and repeatedly votes to remain a colony. However, like a battered wife Puerto Rico must leave this relationship. There are no hopes of this relationship getting better, the United States will continue to abuse the island economically and always promise for better days. The Island will need the help and solidarity of the international community. It will also need all of the curiosity and comradery of those of us that consider ourselves international citizens. This decision will not be an easy one and at some point there may even be an impulse to go back to the master, which must be ignored. Nothing is more liberating then when someone stands on their own feet after an abusive relationship.
One mustn’t forget the murder of Filiberto Ojeda Rios and numerous other martyrs, the forced sterilizations of Puerto Rican women, the conscription of Puerto Rican men to fight imperialist wars of hate. One must never forget the destruction of Puerto Rican agriculture, the poisoning of the environment by the pharmaceutical companies and the cancer epidemic spread in Vieques by the U.S. Navy. The innumerable laundry list of U.S. crimes against humanity on the island cannot be listed in this article, as it would take years of research and thousands of pages. Additionally, there can be no making right the millions of wrongs, therefore it seems like the right time to sever this unequal relationship and become the Republic of Puerto Rico. It has been proven in history that Puerto Rico is powerful not weak consider all of the revolutionaries, martyrs and free thinkers the island produces. The revolutionary spirit of the Grito de Lares must persist in these tumultuous times.
by Steve Newcomb
The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice
When Christopher Columbus first set foot on the white sands of Guanahani island, he performed a ceremony to “take possession” of the land for the king and queen of Spain, acting under the international laws of Western Christendom. Although the story of Columbus’ “discovery” has taken on mythological proportions in most of the Western world, few people are aware that his act of “possession” was based on a religious doctrine now known in history as the Doctrine of Discovery. Even fewer people realize that today – five centuries later – the United States government still uses this archaic Judeo-Christian doctrine to deny the rights of Native American Indians.
Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery
To understand the connection between Christendom’s principle of discovery and the laws of the United States, we need to begin by examining a papal document issued forty years before Columbus’ historic voyage In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories.
Under various theological and legal doctrines formulated during and after the Crusades, non-Christians were considered enemies of the Catholic faith and, as such, less than human. Accordingly, in the bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas directed King Alfonso to “capture, vanquish, and subdue the saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ,” to “put them into perpetual slavery,” and “to take all their possessions and property.” [Davenport: 20-26] Acting on this papal privilege, Portugal continued to traffic in African slaves, and expanded its royal dominions by making “discoveries” along the western coast of Africa, claiming those lands as Portuguese territory.
Thus, when Columbus sailed west across the Sea of Darkness in 1492 – with the express understanding that he was authorized to “take possession” of any lands he “discovered” that were “not under the dominion of any Christian rulers” – he and the Spanish sovereigns of Aragon and Castile were following an already well-established tradition of “discovery” and conquest. [Thacher:96] Indeed, after Columbus returned to Europe, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal document, the bull Inter Cetera of May 3, 1493, “granting” to Spain – at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella – the right to conquer the lands which Columbus had already found, as well as any lands which Spain might “discover” in the future.
In the Inter Cetera document, Pope Alexander stated his desire that the “discovered” people be “subjugated and brought to the faith itself.” [Davenport:61] By this means, said the pope, the “Christian Empire” would be propagated. [Thacher:127] When Portugal protested this concession to Spain, Pope Alexander stipulated in a subsequent bull – issued May 4, 1493 – that Spain must not attempt to establish its dominion over lands which had already “come into the possession of any Christian lords.” [Davenport:68] Then, to placate the two rival monarchs, the pope drew a line of demarcation between the two poles, giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over one side of the globe, and Portugal over the other.
During this quincentennial of Columbus’ journey to the Americas, it is important to recognize that the grim acts of genocide and conquest committed by Columbus and his men against the peaceful Native people of the Caribbean were sanctioned by the abovementioned documents of the Catholic Church. Indeed, these papal documents were frequently used by Christian European conquerors in the Americas to justify an incredibly brutal system of colonization – which dehumanized the indigenous people by regarding their territories as being “inhabited only by brute animals.” [Story:135-6]
The lesson to be learned is that the papal bulls of 1452 and 1493 are but two clear examples of how the “Christian Powers,” or “different States of Christendom,” viewed indigenous peoples as “the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors.” [Wheaton:270-1] In fact, the Christian “Law of Nations” asserted that Christian nations had a divine right, based on the Bible, to claim absolute title to and ultimate authority over any newly “discovered” Non-Christian inhabitants and their lands. Over the next several centuries, these beliefs gave rise to the Doctrine of Discovery used by Spain, Portugal, England, France, and Holland – all Christian nations.
The Doctrine of Discovery in U.S. Law
In 1823, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery was quietly adopted into U.S. law by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case, Johnson v. McIntosh (8 Wheat., 543). Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed “ultimate dominion” over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that – upon “discovery” – the Indians had lost “their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations,” and only retained a right of “occupancy” in their lands. In other words, Indians nations were subject to the ultimate authority of the first nation of Christendom to claim possession of a given region of Indian lands. [Johnson:574; Wheaton:270-1]
According to Marshall, the United States – upon winning its independence in 1776 – became a successor nation to the right of “discovery” and acquired the power of “dominion” from Great Britain. [Johnson:587-9] Of course, when Marshall first defined the principle of “discovery,” he used language phrased in such a way that it drew attention away from its religious bias, stating that “discovery gave title to the government, by whose subject, or by whose authority, the discovery was made, against all other European governments.” [Johnson:573-4] However, when discussing legal precedent to support the court’s findings, Marshall specifically cited the English charter issued to the explorer John Cabot, in order to document England’s “complete recognition” of the Doctrine of Discovery. [Johnson:576] Then, paraphrasing the language of the charter, Marshall noted that Cabot was authorized to take possession of lands, “notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives, who were heathens, and, at the same time, admitting the prior title of any Christian people who may have made a previous discovery.” [Johnson:577]
In other words, the Court affirmed that United States law was based on a fundamental rule of the “Law of Nations” – that it was permissible to virtually ignore the most basic rights of indigenous “heathens,” and to claim that the “unoccupied lands” of America rightfully belonged to discovering Christian European nations. Of course, it’s important to understand that, as Benjamin Munn Ziegler pointed out in The International Law of John Marshall, the term “unoccupied lands” referred to “the lands in America which, when discovered, were ‘occupied by Indians’ but ‘unoccupied’ by Christians.” [Ziegler:46]
Ironically, the same year that the Johnson v. McIntosh decision was handed down, founding father James Madison wrote: “Religion is not in the purview of human government. Religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; a connection between them is injurious to both.”
Most of us have been brought up to believe that the United States Constitution was designed to keep church and state apart. Unfortunately, with the Johnson decision, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery was not only written into U.S. law but also became the cornerstone of U.S. Indian policy over the next century.
From Doctrine of Discovery
to Domestic Dependent Nations
Using the principle of “discovery” as its premise, the Supreme Court stated in 1831 that the Cherokee Nation (and, by implication, all Indian nations) was not fully sovereign, but “may, perhaps,” be deemed a “domestic dependent nation.” [Cherokee Nation v. Georgia] The federal government took this to mean that treaties made with Indian nations did not recognize Indian nations as free of U.S. control. According to the U.S. government, Indian nations were “domestic dependent nations” subject to the federal government’s absolute legislative authority – known in the law as “plenary power.” Thus, the ancient doctrine of Christian discovery and its subjugation of “heathen” Indians were extended by the federal government into a mythical doctrine that the U.S. Constitution allows for governmental authority over Indian nations and their lands. [Savage:59-60]
The myth of U.S. “plenary power” over Indians – a power, by the way, that was never intended by the authors of the Constitution [Savage:115-17] – has been used by the United States to:
- Circumvent the terms of solemn treaties that the U.S. entered into with Indian nations, despite the fact that all such treaties are “supreme Law of the Land, anything in the Constitution notwithstanding.”
- Steal the homelands of Indian peoples living east of the Mississippi River, by removing them from their traditional ancestral homelands through the Indian Removal Act of 1835.
- Use a congressional statute, known as the General Allotment Act of 1887, to divest Indian people of some 90 million acres of their lands. This act, explained John Collier (Commissioner of Indian Affairs) was “an indirect method – peacefully under the forms of law – of taking away the land that we were determined to take away but did not want to take it openly by breaking the treaties.”
- Steal the sacred Black Hills from the Great Sioux nation in violation of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie which recognized the Sioux Nation’s exclusive and absolute possession of their lands.
- Pay the Secretary of the Interior $26 million for 24 million acres of Western Shoshone lands, because the Western Shoshone people have steadfastly refused to sell the land and refused to accept the money. Although the Western Shoshone Nation’s sovereignty and territorial boundaries were clearly recognized by the federal government in the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty, the government now claims that paying itself on behalf of the Western Shoshone has extinguished the Western Shoshone’s title to their lands.
The above cases are just a few examples of how the United States government has used the Johnson v. McIntosh and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia decisions to callously disregard the human rights of Native peoples. Indeed, countless U.S. Indian policies have been based on the underlying, hidden rationale of “Christian discovery” – a rationale which holds that the “heathen” indigenous peoples of the Americas are “subordinate to the first Christian discoverer,” or its successor. [Wheaton:271]
As Thomas Jefferson once observed, when the state uses church doctrine as a coercive tool, the result is “hypocrisy and meanness.” Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court’s use of the ancient Christian Doctrine of Discovery – to circumvent the Constitution as a means of taking Indian lands and placing Indian nations under U.S. control – has proven Madison and Jefferson right.
Bringing an End to Five Hundred Years of Injustice
to Indigenous Peoples
In a country set up to maintain a strict separation of church and state, the Doctrine of Discovery should have long ago been declared unconstitutional because it is based on a prejudicial treatment of Native American people simply because they were not Christians at the time of European arrival. By penalizing Native people on the basis of their non-Christian religious beliefs and ceremonial practices, stripping them of most of their lands and most of their sovereignty, the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling stands as a monumental violation of the “natural rights” of humankind, as well as the most fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples.
As we move beyond the quincentennial of Columbus’ invasion of the Americas, it is high time to formally renounce and put an end to the religious prejudice that was written into U.S. law by Chief Justice John Marshall. Whether or not the American people – especially the Christian right – prove willing to assist Native people in getting the Johnson ruling overturned will say a lot to the world community about just how seriously the United States takes its own foundational principles of liberty, justice, and religious freedom.
As we approach the 500th anniversary of the Inter Cetera bulls on May 3 and 4 of 1993, it is important to keep in mind that the Doctrine of Discovery is still being used by countries throughout the Americas to deny the rights of indigenous peoples, and to perpetuate colonization throughout the Western Hemisphere. To begin to bring that system of colonization to an end, and to move away from a cultural and spiritual tradition of subjugation, we must overturn the doctrine at its roots. Therefore, I propose that non-Native people – especially Christians – unite in solidarity with indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere to impress upon Pope John Paul II how important it is for him to revoke, in a formal ceremony with indigenous people, the Inter Cetera bulls of 1493.
Revoking those papal documents and overturning the Johnson v. McIntosh decision are two important first steps toward correcting the injustices that have been inflicted on indigenous peoples over the past five hundred years. They are also spiritually significant steps toward creating a way of life that is no longer based on greed and subjugation. Perhaps then we will be able to use our newfound solidarity to begin to create a lifestyle based on the first indigenous principle: “Respect the Earth and have a Sacred Regard for All Living Things.”
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831).
Davenport, Frances Gardiner, 19l7, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Johnson and Graham’s Lessee V McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823).
Rivera-Pagan, Luis N., 1991, “Cross Preceded Sword in ‘Discovery’ of the Americas,” in Yakima Nation Review, 1991, Oct. 4.
Story, Joseph, 1833, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Vol. 1 Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Thacher, John Boyd, 1903, Christopher Columbus Vol. 11, New York: G.P. Putman’s Sons.
Williamson, James A., 1962, The Cabot Voyages And Bristol Discovery Under Henry VII, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wheaton, Henry, 1855, Elements of International Law, Sixth Edition, Boston: Little Brown, and Co.
Ziegler, Benjamin Munn, 1939, The International Law of John Marshall, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.