President Bush Discusses Health Care

President Bush Discusses Health Care

Roosevelt Room

Audio

In Focus: Health Care

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. I just finished a really interesting and good discussion with a group of distinguished health care experts. I appreciate you all taking your time. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here, as well.

These men and women have different specialties, different backgrounds, and different ideas, but they all agree on an important fact: America's health care system is in need of serious reform. And I agree. The American people share that belief, as well. In my conversations with Republicans and Democrats and business owners and workers, I hear the same concerns: America's health care is too costly, it's too confusing; it leaves too many people uninsured.

The fundamental question is, what should we do about it? On that question, our nation has a clear choice. One option is to put more power in the hands of government by expanding federal health care programs and empowering bureaucrats to make medical decisions. The other option is to put more power in the hands of individuals, by making private health insurance more affordable and accessible and empowering people and their doctors to make the decisions that are right for them. That's the divide.

Debate between these two options is now beginning to play out on Capitol Hill. Democrat leaders in Congress are considering a massive expansion of government health care through a program called S-CHIP, which stands for State Children's Health Insurance Program. This program was designed to ensure that poor children without health insurance receive the medical care they need. I support S-CHIP for that purpose. I think it makes sense to have a program to help poor children get the health insurance they need.

My budget increases funding for the poor children in S-CHIP. The problem is that Democrats want to expand S-CHIP far beyond its original intent. If their proposal becomes law, S-CHIP would expand its reach to include children from family that earn as much as $80,000 a year, as well as some adults. This is a massive expansion of the program.

And as a result, many of these people would give up the private health insurance they have now as they move to government health care. In fact, a recent study estimated that as many as half the children enrolling in S-CHIP would drop their private health coverage, which is contrary to the program's original purpose. The Democrats' proposal is part of a larger strategy.

At the same time that they try to expand S-CHIP to older citizens, they are trying to expand Medicare to younger citizens. Their goal is to take incremental steps down the path to government-run health care for every American. It's the wrong path for our nation.

Government-run health care would deprive Americans of the choice and competition that comes from the private market. It would cause huge increases in government spending, which could lead to higher taxes. It would result in rationing, inefficiency and long-waiting lines. It would replace the doctor-patient relationship with dependency on people here in Washington, D.C.

And there's a better way forward. We strongly believe that the S-CHIP proposal put forward by some Democrats in Congress needs to be resisted. And here's what we believe. We believe there's a better alternative. Instead of expanding S-CHIP beyond its purpose, we should return its focus to the children most in need. And instead of encouraging people to drop private coverage in favor of government plans, we should work to make basic private health insurance affordable for all Americans.

My administration is pursuing this goal in a variety of innovative ways. We created health savings accounts which allow people to save, tax free, for routine medical expenses and help reduce the cost of private insurance. We're working to pass association health plans so that small businesses can insure their workers with private coverage at the same discounts that big businesses get. We're working to stop junk lawsuits to drive up private insurance premiums and good doctors out of practice.

The best way to make private insurance more affordable, however, is to reform the tax code. Under current law, workers who are fortunate enough to get health insurance from their employers receive a tax benefit. But if you buy insurance on your own, you get no tax benefit.

That's unfair, so I propose leveling the playing field. Under my plan, every family with private health coverage will receive a standard tax deduction of $15,000. That means families could deduct $15,000 from their income before they pay taxes, no matter where they get their health insurance. I'm pleased that many health care experts and members of Congress share the objective for ending a bias in the tax code.

Now I recognize some of them believe a tax credit for health insurance would be a better way to do so. For example, some have proposed a tax credit of $5,000 for every family with private coverage. This would have a similar outcome as the standard deduction I proposed, and I'm open to further discussions about these two options.

Whichever plan we choose, reforming the tax code would have a major impact on American health care. That's what's important for our citizens to understand. There's a better way from expanding the government, and that is to reform the tax code. For example, just as tax incentives for home ownership have encouraged more Americans to buy homes through the private housing market, new incentives for health insurance would lead more Americans to buy coverage through the private health insurance market. And that's what we want. That ought to be the goal of this country.

By reforming the tax code, it would help more than 100 million people who are now covered by employer-provided insurance reduce their tax bills. Those who now purchase health insurance on their own would save money on their taxes for the first time. As many as 20 million others who have no health insurance would purchase basic coverage.

While the federal government is working to reform the tax code, states should address other problems in our health care system. That's precisely what the Secretary is doing, working with our states. States should make reforms to ensure that their citizens have access to basic private health insurance. It's a dual responsibility. If we want a better system, the federal government has got a responsibility to reform, and so do states.As they do so, they should ensure that help is provided to those who can least afford coverage.

We're at a decisive moment in the debate over health care. The choices we make now will set the direction of medical care in America for years to come. I'm going to continue to work with members of both parties to look past tired, old proposals that make bigger government programs the solution to every problem. I'm going to continue to push for new and innovative ways to help every American afford basic private health insurance. I will continue to put my trust in the good judgment of the American people, and I'll put my trust in the finest system of private medicine in the world.

I want to thank you all for coming, thanks for your interest. Thank you. (Applause.)

Venezuelan President Chavez in Russia for Possible Weapons Deal

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is in Moscow for discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin about a
possible arms deal and expanded economic ties between the two countries. VOA Correspondent Peter Fedynsky reports from the Russian capital.

President Chavez is expected to meet with his Russian counterpart Thursday evening in the Kremlin. Speaking during the day at the opening of a Latin American cultural center in Moscow, the Venezuelan leader said he does not rule out the development of nuclear energy in his country. In a swipe at the United States, Mr. Chavez also said American troops should leave Iraq, and that Iran has a right to nuclear technology.

Mr. Chavez says that Iran has the right to a peaceful atomic energy industry, because it is a sovereign state.

His Moscow agenda includes the possible purchase of Russian diesel-electric submarines, armed with missiles. Mr. Chavez is also interested in buying the Russian TOR-1 missile defense system.

Last year, Mr. Chavez signed a deal with the Kremlin to purchase $3 billion worth of weapons, including helicopters, fighter planes and small arms.

But Mr. Chavez said weapons are not the aim of his visit.

He says his priorities are culture, ideas and cooperation in energy as well as the military.

The two countries, both major exporters of energy, are discussing expanded commerce. Russian state television says bilateral trade, last year, amounted to only $90 million.

On Saturday, the Venezuelan leader will be President Putin's guest at a horse race in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don. However, despite signs of closer relations, Russian lawmakers voted against allowing Mr. Chavez to address them in a full session of the country's lower house of Parliament. The move is interpreted here as a way to avoid further aggravating the already chilly Russian relationship with the United States. The U.S. administration considers the Venezuelan leader a destabilizing voice in Latin America. Washington is also concerned about his international arms purchases.

Mr. Chavez has plans for more weapons deals with neighboring Belarus, where he flies after his visit to Russia. He then continues to Iran.

The Venezuelan's visit to Russia comes on the eve of President Putin's visit this weekend with President Bush at the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine. The two leaders are expected to discuss ways of overcoming the recent chill in relations.

VOA News

Sesiona gran jurado

Sesiona gran jurado

(AP) — El segundo gran jurado federal que investiga los donativos presuntamente ilegales recibidos por las campañas del gobernador Aníbal Acevedo Vilá volvió a sesionar el viernes.Una fuente de Prensa Asociada informó que el gran jurado tiene en agenda entrevistar entre tres y cinco testigos durante la jornada. No fue posible confirmar sus identidades.El cuerpo investigador vuelve a sesionar en momentos en que empresarios que han declarado ante el gran jurado rompen su silencio en entrevistas con el periódico The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Según el diario, los testigos fueron citados para que respondieran si contribuyeron a las campañas de Acevedo Vilá a cambio de contratos con el gobierno puertorriqueño y sobre el supuesto esquema de dividir las aportaciones políticas a través de terceros donantes para sobrepasar el límite establecido por la Ley Electoral federal.Richard T. Kenney, un impresor de Woodbury, Pensilvania, confirmó que el gran jurado le preguntó sobre Cándido Negrón, un empresario del condado de Delaware que alegadamente recaudó miles de dólares para la campaña de Acevedo Vilá con el objetivo fallido de obtener contratos para proveer servicios dentales en la Isla.

‘‘Me trataron magníficamente’’, indicó Kenney sobre su estadía en Puerto Rico.Kenney dijo que testificó que Negrón le pidió que escribiera cheques para Acevedo Vilá con la promesa de que le reembolsaría el dinero al día siguiente.La familia de Kenney contribuyó con 11,000 dólares, agrega el rotativo.‘‘Me devolvieron el dinero de inmediato. Esa hubiese sido la única manera de hacerlo para mí’’, indicó el impresor.Kenney también mencionó que había hecho un trabajo de imprenta para una de las compañías dentales de Negrón, a quien describió como ‘‘un muchacho agradable’’.

Entre los testigos entrevistados también figuró Irv Richter, a quien el periódico identificó como un prominente consultor en construcción.Negrón no quiso hablar con el periódico y dijo que estaba buscando un abogado.Las autoridades federales no han querido confirmar que Acevedo Vilá es el blanco de la pesquisa, pero el Ejecutivo ha dicho que no le cabe la menor duda de que la investigación gira en torno a su persona.Empero, el Gobernador ha insistido en que no ha hecho nada ilegal y ha repetido que ‘‘la verdad prevalecerá’’, pues las autoridades federales sólo han echado a correr rumores y filtrado información a la prensa sin que hayan podido radicar ninguna acusación tras dos años de pesquisa.

Según el diario Entre 2002 y 2004, Negrón y el recaudador demócrata establecido en Filadelfia Robert Feldman recogieron miles de dólares para Acevedo Vilá.De los casi 800,000 dólares que Acevedo Vilá recaudó entre 2001 y 2004, unos 180,000 dólares provinieron de residentes de Pensilvania y Nueva Jersey.Entre las entrevistadas por el FBI, también figuró la empresaria Judith Mondre, de una firma de consultores ambientales en Filadelfia, que en noviembre de 2002 donó 3,000 dólares a la campaña de Acevedo Vilá.Un mes antes, en octubre de ese mismo año, la Oficina de Gerencia y Presupuesto otorgó a Mondre un contrato por 120,000 dólares que luego no renovó la ex directora ejecutiva de esa agencia Melba Acosta.El abogado de Mondre, William DeStefano, dijo al diario que su clienta cobró por el trabajo que realizó y rechazó que lo haya conseguido producto de la aportación económica que le hizo a Acevedo Vilá.

‘‘Toda la evidencia demuestra que ella absolutamente hizo todo el trabajo por el que se le contrató y que cobró una cantidad justa y ese trabajo fue beneficioso para el gobierno de Puerto Rico’’, sostuvo DeStefano.Las gestiones investigativas de la fiscalía federal de San Juan en torno a Acevedo Vilá son el único ángulo que queda vivo de una pesquisa que, de acuerdo al periódico The Philadelphia Inquirer, ya exploró sin resultado varios ángulos en Filadelfia relacionados con Feldman.

Our 51st "Estado"

Chris Weigant

Our 51st "Estado"

Posted June 27, 2007

In the midst of the immigration debate raging in both houses of Congress, an old chestnut has been revived by Republicans: declaring English the national language. The issue polls extremely high with the general public, and Republicans even passed an amendment in the Senate earlier this month by a vote of 64-33, which means a bunch of Democrats (17 of them) voted for it as well. A similar amendment is part of the debate in the House. My question to these lingual purists is: what happens if Puerto Rico becomes the 51st state of the Union?

This is one of those back-burner issues that comes up for a vote now and again (in Puerto Rico), but then "never actually happens" -- so Americans feel free to ignore it as a whole. Or, I should say, "Americans outside of Puerto Rico," since all Puerto Ricans are already American citizens. But every referendum that happens, the percentage voting for statehood gets larger and larger. While it shouldn't be seen as an inevitability, it should indeed be seen as a strong possibility. Say, within the next ten years or so.

So what are we going to do if an American state speaks Spanish as their primary language? It's a question worth thinking about ahead of time.
There's a joke I heard while I was living in Europe, which goes like this:

Q: What do you call a person who speaks three languages?

A: "Trilingual."

Q: What do you call a person who speaks two languages?

A: "Bilingual."

Q: What do you call a person who speaks one language?

A: "An American."

This is obviously due to people from countries (who don't speak English) getting very tired of American tourists who seem to think that: "a-NY-bo-DY... who... speaks... ENG-lish... SLOW-ly... E-nough... and... who... e-NUN-ci-ATES... their... WORDS... well... E-nough..." can be understood by anyone on the planet, no matter what language they speak. You can understand their frustration, if you've ever seen an ignorant American tourist perform this embarrassing pantomime in another country.

But back to the home front. The first question raised is: "How the heck does a territory become a state, anyway?" This is the primary question asked by most Americans, which is due to the fact that we are now in the longest period in American history without admitting a new state. The last states who joined the Union were, of course, Hawaii and Alaska, both in 1959. This happened almost 47 years after the 48th state (Arizona) was admitted in 1912 -- but we have now gone almost 48 years without admitting a new state, breaking the previous record.

The answer is a little vague. Here is the relevant text from the Constitution:

Article IV, Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

In practical terms, this has usually meant that (1) the territory in question has to have a certain minimum number of people living in it, (2) they have to vote on it and have the majority favor statehood, and (3) they have to have a state constitutional convention, to enact a state constitution. And then, of course, Congress gets to vote whether to admit them or not.

Now, there really is only one candidate for becoming the 51st state: Puerto Rico. Ignoring deluded fantasies of splitting either California or Texas into multiple new states, and also ignoring the perennial push to declare the District of Columbia a state; Puerto Rico is really the only viable candidate. All the other U.S. territories (mostly islands in the Pacific) simply don't have enough people living in them.

Well, OK, I can't just ignore Washington, D.C. -- simply because they've got one heck of an amusing way of showing how annoyed they are that they have no (voting) representatives in Congress: their vehicle license plates. Since 2001, their license plates have provocatively displayed the following slogan: "Taxation Without Representation."

What a hoot! Using a Revolutionary War slogan on their official license plates to let all the congressional legislators (who see these plates on a daily basis, it should be noted) know how annoyed they are that they have no congressional representation who can cast a vote.

But I digress.

Puerto Rico has been actively considering statehood for some time now. They have held three referenda on the issue in the last few decades. The numbers and the trends they show are interesting, but not conclusive. The first of these three votes took place in 1967. 60.4% voted for continued "commonwealth" status, and 39.0% voted for statehood. The next took place in 1993. This time the vote was much closer, with 48.6% choosing the status quo of being a commonwealth, but 46.3% chose statehood (the numbers don't add up to 100% because other options, such as becoming an independent country, were also on the ballot).

That's a spread of only 2.3% -- a pretty small margin. The most recent of these votes took place in 1998. The vote was a little skewed because the "commonwealth" faction overreached and used vague and unpopular language, so the "status quo" vote went to the newly-added "none of the above" option on the ballot. The outcome was 50.3% for "none of the above" and 46.5% for statehood. While the total percentage for statehood was higher than in 1993 by 0.2%, the "spread" was also higher, at 3.8%. So, statistically speaking, it's not clear what would happen if another vote were held today -- the trend could go either way, in other words.

But you've got to admit, it's still a pretty small margin. Which means that at some time during the next 10 years, another referendum could happen on the island, and if they reach a majority, then they will begin working on ratifying a state constitution and applying to Congress for statehood.
And it's an absolute certainty that their state constitution will not be "English-only" or proclaim English as the state language. Quite the opposite: they may set into their state constitution that the state government will conduct its affairs in two languages: Spanish and English. Or they may even (gasp!) declare Spanish their official state language.

So what is Congress going to do when faced with such a dilemma? What will the president (whomever it happens to be) say about the issue? Republican presidential candidates are already on record, with the exception of John McCain, of supporting English as a national language (it plays to their xenophobic base). But even John McCain, after denouncing such efforts, voted for that English-only amendment to the immigration bill (mentioned earlier). The Arizona Republic article skewers McCain thusly: "Anyone know the Spanish translation for flip-flop?"

What would we all do if a Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico became our 51st state (after we redesign the U.S. flag, that is)? Obviously, at this point, any "English is our national language" nonsense will have to be repealed.
Of course, it would all be a lot easier if Democrats wouldn't vote for such silliness in the first place, but that may be too much to ask during the horse-trading which is currently at the center of the immigration debate. The most intelligent commentary I've heard on the subject comes from a retired Air Force officer, in an op-ed to the tiny Central Shenandoah Valley News Leader. It's worth reading for the common sense he offers.

I say let's not be the butt of the rest of the world's jokes. Let's admit that America can still be America with two official languages. Let's welcome Puerto Rico (if and when it happens) as our 51st state -- with no linguistic jingoism. We will wind up as a stronger country for having done so.

Reconoce AAV que es blanco de pesquisa federal

Reconoce AAV que es blanco de pesquisa federal

(AP) — El gobernador Aníbal Acevedo Vilá no tiene dudas de que él es blanco de la pesquisa que realiza un segundo jurado federal.‘‘¿Tú tienes duda? Yo no tengo la más mínima duda’’, respondió hoy lunes el mandatario cuando un periodista le preguntó si él tenía la misma impresión que el alcalde de Caguas, William Miranda Marín, de que él es el principal investigado.‘‘Yo no dudo que están investigando cosas alrededor de mi persona, no tengo la más mínima duda, pero no me quita el sueño’’, añadió.El Gobernador insistió en que, al final de la investigación, la verdad prevalecerá.

‘‘No tengo ninguna duda de que cuando la verdad prevalezca, va a quedar corroborado lo que le he dicho a ustedes desde el principio.Llevan dos años y lo único que han podido hacer es regar rumores’’, manifestó.Un segundo gran jurado federal investiga donativos presuntamente ilegales recibidos por las campañas eleccionarias de Acevedo Vilá de parte de empresarios de Filadelfia que a cambio buscaron contratos con el gobierno puertorriqueño.El Gobernador ha negado que haya cometido algún acto ilegal.

La investigación en Puerto Rico nació de una pesquisa que se realizó en Filadelfia y que se cerró sin que se hubiesen emitido acusaciones contra los investigados.El gran jurado es un cuerpo investigador integrado por 23 personas y para que pueda sesionar se requiere un quórum de 16. Al momento de retirarse a deliberar, una vez se constituya el quórum, 12 deben votar a favor de una acusación. Si no, los cargos no proceden.

Charlie oficializa aspiración

Charlie oficializa aspiración
Por: Liz Arelis Cruz y Yamilet MillánEL VOCERO

El ex presidente del Senado, Charlie Rodríguez, apuntó ayer a su experiencia y lealtad al Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) como su carta de triunfo que espera le haga sobresalir por encima de los demás precandidatos al puesto de comisionado residente por la Palma.Rodríguez fue uno de las decenas de aspirantes a puestos electivos que ayer anunciaron la radicación de sus candidaturas por el partido azul, entre los que también se encontraban, principalmente, presidentes de comités municipales.Contó con el respaldo de varios primeros ejecutivos, como el de Manatí, Corozal y Vega Alta.

También con los legisladores Albita Rivera, Norma Burgos, Jorge Navarro, ‘Jun’ Rivera, Junior González, entre otros."Me someto al escrutinio del pueblo como lo he hecho en el pasado, unas veces con éxito, otras no. Pero nunca he abandonado el partido, que busca candidatos leales a sus causas, no candidatos recientes, sino de siempre. Yo he sido leal en las buenas y en las malas.

A pesar de que no fui candidato en el 2004, no figuré en la papeleta, estuve haciendo campaña en toda la Isla", expresó Rodríguez.También recordó que presidió el comité de la plataforma que presentó el PNP para las elecciones del 2004, el que, dijo, el liderato ha señalado como el mejor de todos los elaborados por la colectividad previamente.Rodríguez, tras presidir el Senado en la década de 1990, intentó aspirar al puesto de comisionado residente en Washington para el 2004, pero cayó frente al hoy comisionado, Luis Fortuño. En aquel momento eran cuatro los precandidatos.

En estas primarias se perfila que aspirarán por esa candidatura, al menos, cuatro personas, el ex secretario de Justicia, Pedro Pierluisi; la vicepresidenta del PNP, Miriam Ramírez; y el abogado Alfredo Castellanos. Se han mencionado más nombres. Fortuño, precandidato a la gobernación, ya señaló que prefiere a Pierluisi, por lo que los demás candidatos tendrán que luchar por el voto de los seguidores del presidente del PNP, Pedro Rosselló, quien probablemente opte por no favorecer candidato alguno a esa posición. Es en esa lucha por los votos de los favorecedores de Rosselló que Rodríguez apelará a su trayectoria dentro del PNP.

Aunque aseguró que se han acercado a él personas que favorecen a Fortuño. Dijo estar dispuesto a trabajar con cualquiera, aunque prefiere a Rosselló.Entre los planes que esbozó para la comisaría residente se encuentran el celebrar una Conferencia Nacional para la Libre Determinación del Pueblo de Puerto Rico; presentar un proyecto en el Congreso para que se celebre un plebiscito federal; implantar el Plan Tennessee para promover la elección de congresistas puertorriqueños; buscar enmiendas a la Ley de Primarias Presidenciales de manera tal que se logre el voto directo de los puertorriqueños entre los aspirantes de los partidos estadounidenses, entre otros.

Rosselló y Santini en Lloréns

Rosselló y Santini en Lloréns

El presidente del PNP, Pedro Rosselló, se unió ayer a un reconocimiento que el alcalde de San Juan, Jorge Santini, le ofreció a 10 líderes del PNP en el residencial Luis Lloréns Torres a quienes describió como “valientes soldados del PNP”. Sobre Rosselló, quien ha dicho que no hará campaña en las primarias, Santini dijo que “no tendrá que hacer mucho porque el PPD se está enterrando solo”.

Inaugura San Juan la academia de golf

Inaugura San Juan la academia de golf

Por Gloria Ruiz Kuilan / El Nuevo Dia
La instalación, ubicada en el antiguo vertedero, será inaugurada el 12 de julio.

Santini aseguró que la academia y el campo de golf son proyectos de envergadura.

De guayabera blanca y en traje de cóctel, con los colores crema y verde, este próximo 10 de julio, a las 8:00 de la noche.

Así lee una invitación del alcalde de San Juan, Jorge Santini, a una gala para inaugurar la academia de golf que está ubicada en el antiguo vertedero de la Capital. Con el nombre de “Gran Gala de Golf”, Santini presentará su proyecto a “un par de cientos de invitados”.

“Se ha invitado una gran cantidad de personas del gobierno, de grupos cívicos, de deportistas de distintas ramas, gran cantidad de golfistas, dueños de tiendas y distribuidores de mercancías de golf, operadores de campos de golf...”, dijo Santini.

Agregó que el costo del evento no lo tenía “exacto” tras ser abordado por este rotativo al concluir ayer una conferencia de prensa. Pero será pagada con fondos públicos porque la invitación señala que es una actividad del Municipio de San Juan.

El Nuevo Día obtuvo una de las invitaciones distribuidas, que es en forma de una pelota de golf, en color dorado con un sobre también dorado.

Además de las condiciones del tipo de vestimenta para el evento, se informa que contarán con la participación de Lissette Álvarez y Andy Montañez. Muestra igualmente el logo del “San Juan Golf Academy & Driving Range”

El Alcalde hizo una actividad de este tipo para la inauguración del Natatorio de la capital bautizado con el nombre “Natatorium de San Juan”.

Proyecto emblemático

“El propósito es el mismo que tuvo el natatorio que es presentarle a la ciudad, a la ciudadanía, al País y al pueblo una instalación importante, un proyecto emblemático. Que la gente lo conozca, lo vea por sus propios medios y lo pueda difundir y promover dentro de la ciudad y el País en que vivimos”, comentó Santini.

Con un espectáculo de acróbatas, mimos y nadadores se presentó el año pasado el natatorio en una actividad similar a la que se efectuará en la academia de golf.

La academia de golf y el campo de práctica será inaugurado el 12 de julio. La instalación también incluye un campo de golf de 18 hoyos.

El costo del proyecto se ha estimado en $5 millones.

Over Hill, Over Dale: The Militarization of Culture

reference: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17822.htm
By Charles Sullivan

06/04/07 "ICH" -- -- A very disturbing commercial is being shown on network television in the United States with alarming regularity. I have seen it frequently during the past few weeks on an NBC station that broadcasts from the nation’s capital, Washington, DC.

It opens with a male chorus—perhaps a military choir--singing: “Over hill, over dale; we have hit the dusty trail.” The song has the cadence of a forced march. In muted light soldiers are seen wading through fetid water with weapons aloft, while well coordinated precision military operations are unfolding all around, like a Rogers and Hammerstein musical. We are supposed to be impressed with the military and technological prowess on display, awed into admiration for it; awed into submission to it, the oracle of our times.

As a montage of war images flicker across the screen, each of them portraying military operations (none of them showing the real horrors of war); a male voice extols the virtues of technological warfare and the unification of all military branches. Air force. Navy. Marines. Army. One force. The commercial ends with the statement, “Northrop Grumman: Defining the future.”

The infomercial clearly targets a male audience. Northrop Grumman and other defense contractors are realizing staggering profits from U.S. imperial policy in the Middle East and around the globe. The social and environmental costs, as always, are born by others. This is corporate welfare in its most hideous form—socialized costs and privatized profits. It is parasitic capitalism in its most malignant incarnation. It is the kind of propaganda Americans are exposed to their every waking moment.

No one who views the advertisement is going to run out and buy an advanced weapons system from Northrop Grumman. Thus one must ponder the real purpose of the ad. The message is not designed to sell weapons systems; it was created to sell the American people on the notion of superior technological prowess, perpetual warfare and war profiteering that guarantees, for a little while longer, at least, an unsustainable way of life: ideas that have already won widespread acceptance among the slumbering masses and the willfully ignorant.

We are supposed to believe that the Military Industrial Complex, a conglomeration of defense contractors with its long poisonous tentacles firmly lodged in the gangrened flesh of government, is protecting us and our way of life from a hostile world intent on destroying both. We are supposed to see perpetual war in Orwellian terms of peace; ignorance as strength, evil as good. Destruction of the commons and our civil liberties by fascist corporatism is supposedly good for the country because it is good for the war profiteers in government and Northrop Grumman—which is only the tip of a much larger malignancy rooted deeply in the cadaverous flesh of American society.

If Northrop Grumman is indeed defining the future, America—and the world—are in deep trouble. We are witnessing the blatant militarization of our culture by the forces of darkness, the machines of misery and death.

Hummers, a military vehicle, populate the roads and highways of America, even as the last drops of cheap oil are being sucked from the sands of the occupied territories. The human costs of war that sustain patterns of conspicuous consumption and waste never enter the minds of consumers. After all we are an exceptional people. The costs are born by others and kept hidden from view.

The glorification of war is nearly ubiquitous in the culture. You see it in the vehicles we drive, aggressive behavior, excessive national pride, flag waving, military style clothing, movies, video games; and now—television commercials. The American consumer is essentially becoming a piece of computer hardware programmed to download propaganda and to execute its commands without thinking. It does what it is programmed to do.

Northrop Grumman, the neocons, and their timorous accomplices in Congress are all peddling the same bogus image to the American people. Like the forces portrayed in the television ad, they are a well financed, well organized array of seemingly disparate forces fighting as one. Who are they fighting? We the people. Democracy. Truth. Peace. Organized labor. Working class people the world over.

Charles Sullivan is an architectural woodworker, photographer, and social activist residing in the Ridge and Valley Province of West Virginia. He welcomes your thoughts and comments at cesullivan@phreego.com.

A mockery of democracy

A mockery of democracy
By: Jose Aponte Jun 20, 2007

As the Republican and Democratic candidates for president crisscross the nation in search of support from the voters, they may be surprised to learn that 4 million of their fellow citizens on the island of Puerto Rico are being denied basic American rights.

That includes the right to vote in the presidential race, despite Puerto Rico's contribution to America's efforts abroad. While we respectfully honor the bravery and dedication of our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans don't realize that per capita, Puerto Rico has lost more sons and daughters in those two countries than most of the 50 states.

Young men and women who, while being given the "right" by our nation to make the ultimate sacrifice, inexplicably still don't have the right to vote for president.

Think about that for a second. U.S. citizens from Puerto Rico are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan to give the people of those beleaguered nations a sacred right that is being denied them at home. Surely, our nation is better than that.

109 years later . . .

Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for 109 years, our people have been U.S. citizens for 90 years, and yet we still have to live under the constraints of being second-class citizens.

While our fellow Americans on the mainland drink from the fountain of liberty, we are relegated to the back of the line, thirsting for what should also be ours.

Not only are we denied a vote for president, but we have no voting representation in Congress, and not all constitutional rights apply to Puerto Rico. For basically a century, the U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico have been left twisting in the wind by a Congress unready to act.

It should be noted that it is not just the people of Puerto Rico who are harmed by this grave discrimination.

If you are a citizen of the U.S. from one of the 50 states and decide to move to Puerto Rico, either temporarily or permanently, you immediately lose your right to cast an absentee ballot for president. Ironically, if you move to Russia, China, France or even certain dictatorships, you, under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, retain that right to vote.

As the speaker of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, I am deeply grateful and honored to note that the administration and many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle not only recognize this miscarriage of justice but are working diligently to rectify the problem.

Resolution through self-determination

Clearly, these members and the administration understand that the island's political status must be resolved immediately -- a resolution that can come only through self-determination.
It is well past time that all of Congress unite to abolish what amounts to nothing less than territorial segregation. Democratic and Republican members must remove the metaphorical shackles and allow the people of Puerto Rico to choose statehood or independence.

Some on the mainland, and indeed, even in Puerto Rico, strongly suggest that politicians like me focus only on issues such as economic development, education and security and leave the status dilemma strictly alone.

Not only is this a defeatist attitude, but it flies in the face of what is morally correct for the people of Puerto Rico, as well as the government of the United States.

The reality is, the solutions to many of the problems of Puerto Rico are inextricably tied to resolving the status issue.

Mockery of democracy?

Not only is the decades-old uncertainty a continuing drag on the economy and our morale, but it is one of the reasons that as many as 20,000 people per month leave our island for the mainland.

The people of Puerto Rico were granted citizenship in 1917. Ninety years later, these same U.S. citizens have not been given a federally sponsored referendum to let them decide if they want to seek statehood or become an independent nation.

At what point do we end this mockery of democracy? I hope all members of Congress will stand shoulder to shoulder with their fellow citizens in Puerto Rico and declare, "This ends today. Self-determination is yours."

Jose Aponte is the speaker of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives.

The Best Ally of Peace is a Strong America

Unidad Ganar o Perder

Unidad Ganar o Perder
Por: Ismael Castro Negrón

Hablar de unidad es irreal si el contenido del término es espejismo, para cubrir medios de prensa o para decir que se gana o se pierde elecciones con o sin Pedro Rosselló González. Al infierno con esos argumentos. Lo único importante para los "Neo-unisonados" es que el fin justifica sus hechos. Han cambiado objetivos estratégicos se dedican a táctica pobre y confusa. Su fin es llegar a administrar el ELA. La opinión pública es lo importante a manipular y lo aparente es más importante que la realidad. Momentáneas conveniencias sin verdadera profundidad de obra.

La demolición sistemática y efectiva de nuestros adversarios, contra nuestros lideres, les conviene para sus propios intereses. Se utiliza para desplazar a hombres que aportan y trabajan. Como siempre dan la espalda, después de cada elección a quienes los respaldan. Ese patrón hay que desterrarlo del partidismo pro estadista. Ayudan pues a la oposición sus acciones de acomodo razonable cobarde y traidor. Son y se convierten en parapeto de izquierdistas y separatistas. Su objetivo es la apariencia, su juego los "interé-sitos" o los grandes intereses. Viva el capitalismo sinceró.

Esa es la orden del día. La que tenemos que repudiar y eliminar por ser contraria a nuestra filosofía y estilo de vida. Luego hay quienes pretenden por estupidez darnos excusas políticas sin sentido y sin recato.

Esa es táctica deshonesta, defrauda y en realidad desune. Palabra pro forma utilizada con otra intención. El intento nada original en nuestra política local, es superficial daña y es necesario ponerlo donde nadie nos lo niegue. Donde al descubierto quede como excrementó político. En su verdadero lugar.

¿Que domina nuestro carácter de estadistas? En manera alguna se puede dar paso al crudo realismo de las canallada de destruir la reputación y la imagen redirigentes estadistas. En su forma más simple, la mentira y la mezquindad no son virtudes. De nada vale o que no es genuino. Esa es la verdad y algunos se dedican a vender figuras adulteradas. Imágenes para comprar y proyectar basura.

Los astutos educados que no prueban otra cosa que no sea, que ni creen ni practican lo que hablan. Lanzan a los medios sus llamados. Otra es la intención de la palabra UNIDAD. Cuando no se da el ejemplo. Pregonar unidad presupone que nadie divida o irrumpa con desprecio a los demás y mucho menos sin derecho. Sus acciones incendian la casa y atacan e insultan, incluso traicionan nuestra ingenuidad.

Mienten públicamente, se apropian del trabajo de otros y se agarran de la faldeta de los genuinos y decentes servidores públicos. No producen y se convierten en fotuto de operaciones dudosas e ideológico promovido por nuestros adversario politicotas. En acciones que no respaldamos. Mienten y el que los acusa es un Republicano probado que no roba puestos, no corre, ni le pide favorcitos políticos a nadie.

Se acusa a Carlos Romero Barceló a quien conocemos de actuar impropiamente. Por el contrario actuó muy acertadamente. Lo hizo la mayoría de los delegados del PNP, en el Coliseito Pedrín Zorrilla el 20 de mayo el 2007. Carlos Romero prefirió seguir con el Dr. Rosselló y se identifico con el mensaje que se distinguía, en una pancarta que leía:

"Prefiero perder con Rosselló, que ganar con Fortuño"

Sume y Reste con mayúscula, Don Luís Dávila Colón, este es un nuevo proceso para estudio. No es suicidio del Movimiento Estadista. Tampoco esta liquidado. Esta aglutinado fuerzas y reorientando sus verdadera motivación. Quizás mi predilección no me hace ver lo que usted opina, que el movimiento estadista "esta enterrado"

Lo cierto es que estamos llenos de traidores y oportunistas y eso si podemos estipularlo. La masa critica y el conglomerado, esta dispuesto a demostrar que en el PNP, se va ha tener que respetar los anhelos del pueblo. Tiene babilla y temple ideológico, la gente de pueblo. Cree y respalda la estadidad en contra de abusos y persecución pública de los seguidores. La resistencia estadista se aglutina gracias a Aníbal y su gobierno autoritario. Cuidado con eso.

Esta claro, bien claro. En su momento se ajustaran las cuentas. Los que actúan como traidores o han claudicado, dejan la capacidad ideológica por puestesitos territoriales. Al descubierto quedan sus debilidades. De hecho el núcleo de llamados dirigentes, se han dedicado a la discordia electoral sin defender como en el 1967 en el Plebiscito de la Montaña. La estadidad es asunto real de estructura gubernamental que respaldara el pueblo. El mismo pueblo que derroco la continuidad de 38 años absoluto del PPD, recuerden la historia vivida.

Imagínese el que escribe, también endoso esa valiente y única expresión de pueblo, pro estadista. Preferencia justa que antepone principio versus actitudes mercenarias. Es interés silencioso de quienes están inconformes con el proceder de quienes dicen ser defensores de lo que presupone sea ser estado. Al tener en sus manos puestos y llevados por el electorado del partido, a la primera oportunidad de demostrarlo, se convierte en energúmenos de todo tipo. Solo frases huecas sin compromiso y excusas lo respaldan.

Vergüenza y respeto por el trabajo la dedicación y el agradecimiento eso les falta. Se le reconoce al Dr. Rosselló González y a todos aquellos que se identifican con los anhelos de igualdad nacional, nuestros respetos. Es respaldó de continuidad, aprecio y respeto por la causa del Dr. José Celso Barbosa y el talento de Don Luís A. Ferré. Estamos serrando filas por la estadidad no por los hombres que están en la política. Cada uno de los que estamos a favor de la estadidad, tenemos el deber de exigir respeto.

Los principios mueven la libertad. Nuestro mundo libre esta lleno de aquellos que lo disfrutan y gozan, pero no de aquellos que lo defienden y lo protegen. Lo utilizan con amplios beneficios, pero no tienen la misma amplitud de retribuir y disponer de actitudes sanas y servicios sin condiciones. Luchar por lo que en ocasiones dicen identificarse y luego con tibia actitud no sostienen tiene su nombré. ¿Son tímidos o es que realmente no son nada? Se mueven en la sociedad civil conciente o inconcientemente con la conveniencia de una veleta.

Engreídos que aparecen robando cámara, con afanes de pleitesía personal. Nublados de entendimiento, arrogantes, desprovistos de verdadera integridad interna. Los verdaderos patriotas actúan a la inversa, en armonía de anonimato. Reconocen como hombres de libertad verdadera que su acción vale por si sola. Vuelvan a la rectitud y al carácter del Dr. José Celso Barbosa y Alcalá, para que entiendan lo que es la verdadera y buena hombría. ¿Qué unidad?

Exige el PNP taller sobre la estadidad

Exige el PNP taller sobre la estadidad

Por Gloria Ruiz Kuilan / El Nuevo Dia

El seminario se ofrecerá los sábados y es requisito para ser candidato por el partido.

El Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) exigirá a todos sus aspirantes a puestos electivos que tomen un seminario sobre los esfuerzos encaminados por el liderato de la colectividad para lograr la estadidad y la descolonización de Puerto Rico.

El seminario comenzó a ofrecerse ayer y se dará todos los sábados hasta agosto, cuando finaliza el período para radicar candidaturas ante la Comisión Estatal de Elecciones (CEE), precisó el ex senador Charlie Rodríguez.

Tomaron el seminario

Pedro Rosselló
José Chico
José Garriga Picó
Víctor Santos
Miriam Ramírez de Ferrer
Abid Quiñones

Rodríguez; el presidente cameral, José Aponte, y Jaime Alex Irizarry, ex candidato a la alcaldía de Carolina, serán los recursos utilizados por el PNP para ofrecer el taller.

Rodríguez explicó que todos los precandidatos, incluso los senadores denominados “auténticos” -de salir airosos del proceso del comité evaluador del PNP-, deben tomar el seminario.

“Ninguna persona será certificada como candidato oficial del PNP si no tiene el reconocimiento de parte del secretario general del partido (Thomas Rivera Schatz) de haber tomado este seminario”, dijo el también ex presidente senatorial.

“Se va a discutir el proceso de la estadidad y el Plan Tennessee como una estrategia adicional. De igual manera, se hablará de los otros esfuerzos que realiza el PNP en distintos foros, entiéndase el Congreso, con el proyecto de la Cámara de Representantes 900 para que se realice una consulta con el aval del Congreso, y los esfuerzos en las Naciones Unidas”, indicó Rodríguez en la sede del PNP.

Explicó que el Plan Tennessee consiste en un mecanismo de presión que usaron los ciudadanos de ese estado en 1796 para obligar a las autoridades pertinentes a incluirlos como estado. Los ciudadanos aprobaron la Constitución del Estado de Tennessee y eligieron a los congresistas que los representarían. Los enviaron a reclamar la inclusión como estado, lo que lograron al cabo de tres meses.

“Después, seis territorios adicionales siguieron la misma estrategia ante la falta de acción del Congreso. Fueron Michigan, Iowa, Kansas, California, Oregon y Alaska. Estos fueron territorios que, cansados de ver que el Congreso no actuara, optaron por actuar ellos mismos. Es una estrategia que lleva de 7-7”, contó Rodríguez.

Ayer, el presidente del PNP y precandidato a la gobernación, Pedro Rosselló, tomó el seminario. También lo tomaron los legisladores José Chico y José Garriga Picó, el artista Víctor Santos, que aspira a senador por acumulación; la ex senadora Miriam Ramírez de Ferrer, quien aspira a comisionado residente en Washington, y el presidente de la juventud novoprogresista, Abid Quiñones, quien busca un escaño como senador por acumulación.

President Bush Attends National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast

President Bush Attends National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast

JW Marriott Hotel Washington, D.C.


THE PRESIDENT: Gracias. Siéntese, por favor. (Applause.) Buenos días. Si. I thank my friend, Luis. This isn't the first time he's introduced me. I'm proud to be back. I thank you for the chance to come to the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast. Appreciate the opportunity to be with Hispanic American pastors and priests and community leaders and faith-based activists from all over the United States. I thank you for coming, and thanks for having me come. I appreciate your leadership, I appreciate your compassion, and I thank you for your abiding faith in the power of prayer.

I'm pleased that two Senators who have got corazones grandes -- (laughter) -- on the immigration bill are with us today -- Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Mel Martinez. Thank you all for coming. (Applause.)

Y también, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano y Luis Fortuno. Thank you all for coming, proud you're here. (Applause.) Thank the veterans and members of the military who are here today. I thank the pastors and community leaders.

At this breakfast we set aside our politics and come together in prayer. That's what we're doing. When we pray we acknowledge our total dependence on Almighty God. We put our future in His hands, and we find that prayer lifts our spirits and changes our lives.

This morning we have many things to pray for. We pray for our families and our loved ones and our friends. We pray for the strength and safety of our nation. We pray for wisdom and grace in times of trial. And we pray to give thanks for the many blessings that God has bestowed upon America.

Among those blessings are millions of talented men and women of Hispanic origin who call this country home. Our nation is more vibrant because of the contributions made by Hispanic Americans in all sectors of our society -- in arts, to business, to religion, to education. Our nation is more hopeful because of the Hispanic Americans who serve in the armies of compassion, who are surrounding neighbors in need who hurt with love; people who are helping to change America one heart and one soul and one conscience at a time.

Many of you at this breakfast devote your lives to serving others. By doing so, you're answering a timeless call to love your neighbor as yourself. You really represent the true strength of America, and I thank you for being of service to our country.

This prayer breakfast has come a long way since it started five years ago. We could have held it in a little tiny closet. And now, as Luis tells me, it's oversubscribed the minute it gets announced. It's a good sign for our country, isn't it? People want to come together in prayer.

Instead of a single morning meeting, you have now come to Washington for a three-day conference. And I appreciate the chance -- you've had a chance to go to Congress and discuss your concerns with members of Congress. I appreciate your support for policies that expand home ownership. We want more Americans saying, welcome to my home, come and see my piece of property. I appreciate the fact that you're promoting small businesses. We want more Americans realizing the dream of owning their own business. And by the way, the Latino small business community is strong, and we intend to keep it that way.

I appreciate your working to raise awareness on HIV/AIDS. I appreciate you working hard to make sure every child gets a good education. Thank you for your concern for our country. You're demonstrating El Sue o Americano es para todos. (Applause.)

And I thank you for making comprehensive immigration reform your top priority. I share that priority. These Senators share that priority. I appreciate the fact that you understand that this debate can be emotional, and it's complex. I appreciate the fact that you understand that members need to hear from you about where you think this country ought to go when it comes to immigration reform. There's a lot of emotion on this issue, and it makes sense to have people from around the country come and sit down with members of Congress to talk rationally about the issue.

Our responsibilities are straightforward -- we've got to enforce the border, basic duty of a sovereign nation. We've got to create a lawful way for foreign workers to fill jobs that Americans are not doing. Our economy depends on them. And we must resolve the status of illegal immigrants already in our country without amnesty and without animosity, because that is the only practical way to fix the problem that has been decades in the making. We must help new immigrants assimilate. That's what has always made our nation strong. People in America must have confidence in this country to help people assimilate.

Mel Martinez's parents put him on an airplane because they didn't want him raised in a tyrannical society on the island of Cuba, and here he now sits as a member of the United States Senate. I was deeply touched at the Coast Guard Academy, when I was sitting there as the Commander-in-Chief of a bunch of kids who just got bars on their shoulders, and the head of the class got up to speak, and he talked about his migrant grandfather; this Hispanic American started his speech to his classmates -- because I was there, there was a lot of cameras, maybe the country -- talking about his migrant grandfather. Isn't it a fabulous country where a migrant grandfather can come and have a dream and work hard, and there's his grandson talking about the promise of America in front of the President of the United States and his classmates. That's the beauty of America. (Applause.)

We must meet our moral obligation to treat newcomers with decency and show compassion to the vulnerable and exploited, because we're called to answer both the demands of justice and the call for mercy.

Most Americans agree on these principles. And now it's time for our elected leaders in Congress to act. You don't have to worry about these two Senators; they're acting, they're in the lead. Each day our nation fails to act, the problem only grows worse. I will continue to work closely with members of both parties, to get past our differences, and pass a bill I can sign this year. (Applause.)

One of the reasons that America leads the world is that we've always welcomed people who are determined to embrace our democracy and stand for freedom. We see that determination every day in the hundreds of thousands of Hispanic Americans who wear the uniform of the United States military.

Today we're joined by a group of Hispanic American soldiers from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I thank these brave men for stepping forward to protect our freedom. I join all of you in praying for their full recovery. And I'm honored to be their Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)

Our nation is blessed to call these men fellow Americans. We thank God for sending us such brave and selfless people. We ask that He give His -- give us the wisdom and grace to be worthy of the sacrifices they make, and the ideals of liberty they defend.

Thank you very much for letting me come by again. Y tambi n, que Dios les bendiga. Amen. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

"Damage Control" de Juan Mari Bras

‘Contradictorios los populares’

Por: (AP) Para el abogado independentista Juan Mari Bras, la propuesta de tres legisladores populares de que se solicite una silla para la Isla en la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) pondrá en relieve la "contradicción enorme" de la relación entre esa organización internacional, los Estados Unidos y Puerto Rico.Sin embargo, Mari Bras opinó el martes que, incluso si se aprobara la medida legislativa que obligaría al Secretario de Estado a solicitar ese puesto en la ONU, esa iniciativa no llegaría a buen puerto.

El proyecto, presentado por los representantes Charlie Hernández y Luis Vega Ramos y el senador Cirilo Tirado, "ayuda a dramatizar la contradicción enorme en que se encuentran Estados Unidos y Naciones Unidas con relación al caso de Puerto Rico", dijo en entrevista con Prensa Asociada."Todo esto tal vez no vaya para ningún sitio, como ocurrirá con los proyectos (propuestos) desde el Congreso, pero dramatiza la realidad, algo que es bueno porque estamos en la coyuntura en que se le va a pedir a la Asamblea General que examine en todos sus aspectos el caso de Puerto Rico", señaló.

El veterano líder independentista se refirió a la resolución que presentará el jueves ante el pleno de la ONU Julio Muriente, copresidente del Movimiento Independentista Nacional Hostosiano, en la que solicitará que se atienda el caso de Puerto Rico en su fondo.Sobre la medida legislativa propuesta por los legisladores populares autonomistas, Mari Bras señaló que lo correcto sería reclamar la intervención del gobernador Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, y no del secretario Fernando Bonilla, ya que es al mandatario a quien le corresponde realizar una petición de ese tipo ante la ONU, y quien tiene el deber de responder a lo aprobado por la Asamblea Legislativa."Tiene que estar dirigida al gobierno de Puerto Rico... Es el Gobernador el que debe hacer la petición y éste se tiene que atener a la política pública que la Legislatura dicte", afirmó.

Asesores y donantes de AAV dan testimonio

Asesores y donantes de AAV dan testimonio
Por: Melissa Correa Velázquez El Vocero

Joel Montalvo, ayudante ejecutivo y asesor del Gobernador en Asuntos Legislativos, Kenneth Goldenberg, presidente de The Goldenberg Group y N. Steven Palmer II, vicepresidente de Finanzas de The Goldenberg Group comparecieron ayer ante el Gran Jurado que investiga los supuestos donativos ilegales en las campañas de Aníbal Acevedo Vilá a la gobernación y a la comisaría residente, así como un alegado esquema de venta de influencias.

Goldenberg llegó al Tribunal federal, acompañado de un séquito, a eso de las 8:30 de la mañana y rechazó comentar si era uno de los objetivos de la pesquisa y sobre su contrato en el proyecto de Ciudadela. Goldenberg se mostró sereno hasta que fue abordado por EL VOCERO. De igual forma, Palmer rechazó ofrecer declaraciones.

El presidente de The Goldenberg Group y sus acompañantes arribaron al Tribunal federal con su equipaje para posteriormente abordar un vuelo con destino a Philadelphia, ciudad sede de la referida compañía, según se supo.El empresario, cuyo testimonio culminó poco después de la 1:00 p.m. fue sacado por la parte posterior del edificio federal.

The Goldenberg Group y Parkway Corporation obtuvieron el contrato del proyecto de vivienda Ciudadela de Santurce. Estas dos empresas se unieron a Miramar State para la construcción de Ciudadela, cuyo contrato se adjudicó en octubre del 2004.Tanto The Goldenberg Group, como Parkway Corporation fueron referidas al Departamento de Vivienda por Acevedo Vilá cuando era comisionado residente en Washington.

Las autoridades federales le requirieron a la ex secretaria del Departamento de Vivienda, Ileana Echegoyen información sobre estas empresas.The Goldenberg Group y Parkway Corporation son dos de varias empresas e individuos investigados por el Negociado Federal de Investigaciones (FBI).

De hecho, en octubre del 2006, al secretario del Departamento de Estado Fernando Bonilla, se le requirió información sobre The Goldenberg Group, sus afiliadas y sus empleados. Entre éstos, Goldenberg, James D. Beste, Michael Lawry, Palmer, Colin A. Jones, Kevin M. Trapper, Goldenberg Management, Goldenberg Acquisition Corp.

The Goldenberg Group donó $11,000 a la campaña de Acevedo Vilá a través de Kenneth y Robert Goldenberg.De otro lado, a eso de la 1:20 p.m. llegó Montalvo al Tribunal acompañado por la secretaria de prensa de La Fortaleza, Juanita Colombani.

La funcionaria indicó que acompañaba al testigo porque es su amigo, porque ella es la secretaria de prensa del Primer Ejecutivo y porque el joven es asesor legislativo de Acevedo Vilá. Colombani había sido interrogada por el primer Gran Jurado que atendió este mismo caso."Estamos en cumplimiento de una citación y vamos a cooperar en lo que sea posible", expresó Montalvo, quien recibió asesoría legal del licenciado Osvaldo Carlo.El testigo dijo a su salida que sólo fue interrogado por unos 10 ó 15 minutos.

"Es impropio, hay una investigación en curso y creo que es impropio que yo comente públicamente las cosas específicas de la investigación", afirmó Montalvo, quien comenzó a trabajar con Acevedo Vilá en el 2002 en la Oficina del Comisionado Residente en Washington.EL VOCERO supo que a Montalvo, quien esperó aproximadamente una hora para ser interrogado, se le cuestionó sobre el tiempo que trabajó en Washington y sobre sus tareas en la oficina de Acevedo Vilá. También le habrían inquirido sobre si el Primer Ejecutivo le ha consultado aspectos legales de la investigación en curso.

Montalvo rechazó haber sido interrogado por agentes del FBI anteriormente. Sin embargo, fuentes de EL VOCERO afirman que el letrado no había comparecido ante el Gran Jurado, pero que sí fue entrevistado anteriormente por los agentes, como es la práctica general en estos procesos.

Más allegados del Goldenberg Group y el PPD ante gran Jurado

Más allegados del Goldenberg Group y el PPD ante Gran Jurado

Desfiló ante el gran jurado el empresario Kenneth Goldenberg, de la compañía Goldenberg Groups. Empero, a éste no fue posible entrevistarlo porque aparentemente fue sacado por la parte de atrás de la corte.La investigación federal contra el también presidente del Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) se centra en donativos supuestamente ilegales que hicieron empresarios de Filadelfia a esa colectividad para las campañas eleccionarias de 2000, cuando Acevedo Vilá aspiró para comisionado residente y la contienda del 2004.

De acuerdo con la fiscalía federal, los donativos se hicieron a cambio de contratos con el gobierno puertorriqueño.La investigación comenzó tras denuncias de que Acevedo Vilá pudo haber recibido donativos ilegales de residentes en Estados Unidos que buscaban contratos con el gobierno boricua.En octubre de 2006, comparecieron Colombani, el secretario de la gobernación, Jorge Silva Puras; el ex director de finanzas de la campaña a la gobernación de Acevedo Vilá, Carlos Dalmau, y la ex directora de la Oficina de Gerencia y Presupuesto (OGP), Ileana Fas Pacheco.

También han comparecido funcionarios del PPD, como su director ejecutivo Aníbal José Torres y Ramón Velasco, ex tesorero de la campaña de Acevedo Vilá. El Gobernador, quien ha dicho insistentemente que no ha cometido ninguna ilegalidad, es representado por el abogado estadounidense experto en casos de cuello blanco, Thomas Green.

President Bush Participates in Joint Statement with President Kaczynski of Poland

President Bush Participates in Joint Statement with President Kaczynski of Poland

White House News

G8 Summit 2007

PRESIDENT KACZYNSKI: (As translated.) Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome everybody to the meeting between President Kaczynski and President Bush.

The talks have been longer than expected, yes. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, we have had a longer meeting with President George W. Bush, and the subject of the conversation were the issues of interest to the United States of America and for Poland, our country.

Certainly we talked about the issue of missile defense system. We talked about problems pertaining to the relations with our very important Russian partner. We talked about the situation in Iran a little; also a little about the situation in Kosovo. But, of course, the main subject of talks were the two first issues.

I can tell you that as far as the missile defense system is concerned, the two parties fully agree. And this is in line with the obvious thing, that the system has no aggressive intentions. This is the plan which is to reenforce the protection of Europe against the dangers which result from the fact that not all the countries of the contemporary world are responsible -- we do not mean Russia here. It's about other states.

As far as relations with our Russian partner are concerned, well, we agree that Russia is an important country in the world and that the status of Russia, which is very extensive territorally, and is also very numerous in terms of population, and it has nuclear capability, which is the legacy from the previous period -- that all these factors give Russia basis for being a country important in the world, a country which really is very important. And the United States and Poland do not question that situation.

However, it is important that our Russian partner, with which Poland wants also to have as good relations as possible -- the United States has good relations with that country -- but that Russia should recognize that the world has changed for the last 18 years, and it concerns also Central and Eastern Europe, and in particular, it concerns our country.

No plans of the United States, as the U.S. President said, or Polish plans are directed against the interests of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation can feel totally safe, at least from the respective of our countries, although there are some other larger states -- large states in the world, and some other entities are responsible for those states. However, the whole plan of the missile defense system is the plan which gives rights to more stability and defense, defense which is needed to guard against irresponsible actions, without any additional objectives here.

However, as far as other uses are concerned which were subjects to our talk, I introduced what I know about the issues related to the Western Balkans, because it is known that not long ago there was a meeting in Brussels, where I talked with almost all the leaders of the Western Balkan states. We talked also about Kosovo, the crucial problem there. We talked also about how, in Polish opinion, the solution pertaining to that region, formerly, the part of Serbia, however, in reality, it is a separate identity and how the relations pertaining to that region can be really reflected on other parts of the world.

We also talked about the stabilizing role of NATO today, and I hope that tomorrow, to an even larger extent. We also talked a little about the European Union. We talked about the states with which the United States is befriended and Poland is befriended. For example, the German Federal Republic. We also exchanged views on France. President George W. Bush had already had a chance to talk longer with President Sarkozy during the meeting of G8, and I had only a brief encounter with him two years ago when I was not President yet. But in two days time I'm going to meet him.

The conversation which we have had, very interesting, important for myself at least. I'm sure it will be followed up another meeting in mid-July. And then we will come to concrete results. The beginning of that was the meeting today, very fruitful for myself. And I want to thank you very much, Mr. President, for coming to Poland. Thank you. Thank you very much.

And now, President George W. Bush.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, thank you for your gracious hospitality. Laura and I are so honored to be with you and Mrs. Kaczynska. I think probably the highlight was to meet your granddaughter. And congratulations on the birth of another granddaughter.

This is our third trip to Poland. We have never been in this beautiful part of your country, and it's spectacular. We really thank you for inviting us to Jurata. Thank you for the walk in the woods. And thank you for the very friendly and important dialogue we had.

The President talked a lot about what we talked about. One thing I do want to do is praise this good country for being so strong for freedom. I love to be in a land where people value liberty, and are willing to help others realize the blessings of liberty. Kosciuszko is a statue right across the street from the White House, on which it says, "For our freedom and yours." Isn't that interesting? For our freedom, and somebody else's. Poland is a great advocate for democracy in the world today.

And I thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership in the cause of freedom. You're very much involved in the cause of freedom in two very difficult theaters: Afghanistan and Iraq. I thank you and I thank the people of Poland for the sacrifices they made so that others may live in a free society. You've deployed nearly 900 troops in Iraq, troops that are helping the Iraqi people defend their young democracy against extremists, radicals who murder in the name of an ideology to deny people the right to live in a free society. And I thank you for the leadership. I appreciate the fact that you've made the decision to extend the deployment through 2007. That is a bold and hard decision, I know. The people of Iraq will never forget it.

And it's important for those families who have lost a loved one in the Iraq theater to understand the American people won't forget it, either. And we send our prayers and blessings to those families.

Recently, in Afghanistan, there was a call for more NATO help, and this government stepped up quickly by sending more troops to help that young democracy survive, as well. So, Mr. President, thank you for your leadership. It's a proud moment in history when free countries are able to help others.

That's how you -- that's how you set the stage for peace. Free societies don't war with each other. That's why Europe is now whole, free, and at peace. Our dream is the same blessings of liberty be extended to the Middle East. I thank you for your stalwart support.

We discussed, as well, the efforts by Poland to help people who are -- need to be free from governments that are -- darken their vision. I thank you very much for your leadership for Belarus, the people of Belarus, a nation where peaceful protestors are beaten and opposition leaders are disappeared.

I appreciate so very much your speaking out on behalf of the dissidents in Cuba -- an island right off our coast, as you know, Mr. President, and it is inspiring for the people of Cuba who want to live in a free society to hear the voices from Europe, such as yours or the Czech Republic's.

We had a -- spent a lot of time talking about the Ukraine. I thank you for your insight. And then, of course, we did talk about missile defense, a subject that the President and I spent a lot of time talking about. It's a subject I spent a lot of time talking about with President Putin yesterday.

First, let me say I appreciate the support of the deployment of the missile defense interceptors here in Poland. We will negotiate a fair agreement that enhances the security of Poland, and the security of the entire continent against rogue regimes who might be willing to try to blackmail free nations. That's the true threat of the 21st century. It's a subject that I told you I discussed with President Putin.

I have made clear what you just made clear, Mr. President, the system we have proposed is not directed at Russia. Indeed, we would welcome Russian cooperation on missile defense. We think it makes sense to have a -- and I proposed, and he accepted, a working group from our State Department, Defense Department and military, to discuss different opportunities and different options, all aimed at providing protection for people from rogue regimes who might be in a position to either blackmail and/or attack those of us who live in free societies.

All in all, we had the kind of conversation you'd expect strong allies to have. It was candid, it was over a really good meal, and I'm looking forward to bringing you back, Mr. President, to the White House. I can't wait to see you there in mid-July. Again, thank you all for your wonderful hospitality. God bless the people of Poland.

Bush arremete contra Rusia por la falta de reformas democráticas

RUEDA DE PRENSA EN PRAGA

Bush arremete contra Rusia por la falta de reformas democráticas

Acusa al gobierno de Venezuela de desmantelar la democracia

Describe el régimen cubano como 'una de las peores dictaduras del mundo'


EFE PRAGA.- El presidente de Estados Unidos, George W. Bush, en una rueda de prensa en Praga, ha arremetido contra Rusia por la falta de avances en las reformas democráticas, en un momento de creciente tensión en las relaciones entre la Casa Blanca y el Kremlin propiciado por el plan estadounidense de colocar un escudo antimisiles en Europa del Este.

"En Rusia, se han frustrado reformas que habían prometido dar más participación a los ciudadanos, lo que tiene implicaciones preocupantes para el desarrollo democrático", dijo el presidente.

Bush mantuvo la referencia a Rusia en su discurso pese al conflicto verbal con el gobierno del presidente Vladimir Putin sobre el plan de la Casa Blanca de desplegar un escudo antimisiles en la República Checa y Polonia.

Las críticas de la Casa Blanca a las tendencias autoritarias de Putin han agriado la relación entre ambos países, así como el desacuerdo sobre el futuro de Kosovo.

Tras una reunión con las autoridades checas antes del discurso, Bush recordó que la Guerra Fría ha concluido y dijo que Rusia no debería "temer" por ese sistema, porque no está dirigido a neutralizar sus misiles, sino los que puedan lanzar regímenes "renegados".

Bush abrió su discurso con un agradecimiento a las personas que "concibieron" la idea de la conferencia: el ex presidente del Gobierno español José María Aznar, el ex presidente checo Vaclav Havel y el ex ministro israelí Natan Sharansky.

Alusiones a China y Venezuela

En su intervención en la conferencia, el presidente de EEUU también se refirió a China, cuyo gobierno "cree que puede seguir abriendo la economía de la nación sin abrir el sistema político".

Estos días se cumplen 18 años de que el Ejército chino matara en la plaza de Tiananmen a entre 400 y 2.000 estudiantes, de acuerdo con distintas fuentes. Bush dijo que Estados Unidos "seguirá construyendo relaciones con estos países", en relación con Rusia y China, "y lo haremos sin abandonar nuestros principios y nuestros valores".

Por otro lado, acusó al gobierno de Venezuela de tomar medidas para desmantelar la democracia y de Cuba dijo que insistirá en pedir el respeto a los derechos humanos de los cubanos en la "transición en la que entra".

"En Venezuela, los líderes elegidos han recurrido a un populismo superficial para desmantelar las instituciones democráticas y fortalecer su control del poder".

En una categoría diferente de Venezuela, Bush calificó a Cuba, Corea del Norte, Irán y Sudán como "tiranías".

"Los cubanos están desesperados por tener libertad y en el período de transición en que la nación entra debemos insistir en que haya elecciones libres, el derecho a la libre expresión y la libre asociación", remarcó Bush, que visita Praga dentro de una gira de ocho días por Europa.

El presidente norteamericano describió al régimen cubano como "una de las peores dictaduras" del mundo y recordó que se ha reunido con disidentes de la isla.

La 'Guerra de las Galaxias'

George W. Bush, emprendió este lunes una gira europea con una primera parada en la República Checa, para dejar clara su decisión de desplegar un escudo antimisiles en Europa del este.

El presidente de EEUU ha retomado el sueño del viejo proyecto de "Guerras de las Galaxias" del icono republicano por definición, Ronald Reagan, y quiere poner en marcha un sistema que pueda derribar proyectiles lanzados contra territorio estadounidense.

El mecanismo cuenta con interceptores y radares en la costa oeste de EEUU, con el objetivo puesto en Corea del Norte, pero para neutralizar cohetes iraníes Washington necesita otra barrera en Europa, que como supuesto "beneficio" añadido protegería a parte del continente europeo.

Ahí es donde entran la República Checa, donde EEUU pretende colocar un radar, y Polonia, donde cavará silos subterráneos para diez interceptores, y que no por casualidad será otra de las paradas de su gira europea de ocho días.

La visita de Bush es una manera de expresar que Estados Unidos respalda a ambos países frente a la "presión" de una Rusia que aún considera a Europa del este como el portal de su casa, según expertos.

El presidente ruso, Vladimir Putin, sugirió en Moscú que apuntará los misiles rusos a Europa por primera vez desde el fin de la "guerra fría" si Washington no ceja en su empeño.