Nicaragua police release all 6 anti-canal leaders

Protest leader Octavio Ortega after being released today

Protest leader Octavio Ortega after being released today

(updated Dec 30, 1 pm)— Nicaraguan police has released all  six leaders of the campesino Land Defense Council after more than 150 hours of illegal detention, according to local media reports.

The campesino leaders, local organizers of a group that has vowed to defend landowners from forced expropriations for the Chinese canal project, all showed signs of being beaten, according to witnesses.

The anti-canal protesters were among the 47 campesinos who were beaten and grabbed during a violent Christmas Eve clash with riot police.

Read more on this story here.

  • Pepe Turcon

    Let’s be clear on one very important fact: Ortega released them NOT because he is the “good guy”, or followed some “law” BUT because he is afraid of the collective reaction, the world over, his criminal excuse of a canal to steal yet again, the land from honorable decent hard working humble farmers.

    The coming confrontations plus a totally broken Russia, Venezuela and Iran (his dear friends) together with a strong Republican majority in both houses guarded by the Tea Party well….the path to Ortega’s demise is about to be played.

    Happy new year indeed!

    • itaia

      The U.S. “manifest destiny” types have failed against Nicaragua since Walker the Filibuster in the later part of the 19th century, the U.S. Marines had to leave in the early decades in the 20th century, the puppet rule of the Somozas could not be saved even with Somozas brother-in-law Sacasa DeBayle as “decan” of the Washington diplomatic corps for 40 years (fourty !) – what a testimony to U.S. “democratic” influence. The U.S.’s Presidente, Genaralisimo Doctor Rafeal Leonidas Trujillo Moline “governer the Dominican Republic from 1930 to 1991. Like Somoza , Trujillo had been trained in the U.S. created “Guardia Nacional” . Finally even the CIA had to order his assassination because he was becoming too unsanitary. When the Dominicans finally had free elections, they elected a leftist – Dr. Juan Bosch. Then the U.S. had to come back to the Dom.Rep. with 22,000 U.S. Marines to prevent “independent” democracy. Read what U.S. Marine Corps General SMEDLEY BUTLER wrote about his role as “muscle-man for Wall Street” in Central America, the Caribbean, Phillipines and China… — As for Republicans and the Tea Party – there are jitters behind the scenes – what is going to happend if they really cut so-called “entitlements” like Social Security in order to cope with the debt of $ 18 trillion ? The Chinese own $ 1.3 trillion U.S. Treasury bonds, the Japanese $ 900 billion, the Arab Oil Monarchies own hundreds of billions, the British tax fraud shelters – Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, British Virgin Islands own hundreds of billions – including the tax fraud manager who handle Mitt Romney’s millions and that of other Republicans. Even the Brazilian hold $ 350 billion in U.S. treasury bonds…

      • itaia

        Correction: The U.S. made and supported dictator in the Dominican Republic – Rafael Leonidas Trujillo ruled from 1930 to 1961 (not 1991 which was a type-error). 1961 the CIA asked General Imbert of the Dominican Army to arrange an ambush assassination. Trujillo like Somoza had been since the late 1910’s been a member of the “Guardia Nacional” which the U.S. Marines had organized after the invasion. But in the 21.st century – U.S. uses other methods- primarily NGOs that “organize” resistance, and then a local “resistance leader” is being groomed in the “international media” as the future savior. There is already one name to be watched in Nicaragua – a woman “leftist reformer” who may be the “chosen” . Most of the operations are now conducted as “coming from the left” – what in South America has already been discovered as the “izquierda falsa”( false flag “left” ops). And to provoke no suspicion – the agents come as “activists” from “environmental” and “indigenous and peasant’s right” NGOs – mostly from Germany, Austria, Switzerland – and in Nicaragua also from Denmark (IBIS which was expelled from Bolivia in 2013 for similar destabilization subversion).

        • Derryl Hermanutz

          Good comments, itaia, based on reality, not based on “believing in” imperialist propaganda.

          • itaia

            For the nica-independistas, the canal is a win-win situation: If the canal becomes reality, Nicaragua will become economically and geopolitically more secure. If the U.S. and its European NATO “partners” manage to prevent the canal – their supporters in Nicaragua will always carry the stigma of having been “partners” of the campaign that kept Nicaragua from really developing its geographic and economic potential.

    • Carla Chamorro

      During the 80’s when Ortega was in bed (for the cash of course) with the Russians and Castro’s “teachers” from Cuba started appearing hanged from trees all over the Nica Countryside with just a rope made from banana trees (no US backed contras here) things started to change. Soon the Chinese will also start appearing hanged from trees all over Nica.
      Never mind the lengthy intellectual comments some leave here, thieves or criminals from wherever they come will be hanged by the local, uncomplicated, non elite, no long talk or essay makers from Nicaragua. They are usually down to earth, honest loving people who have nothing to loose but their soul and more than willing to die for that. Good luck to those not respecting them,with time and just wait and see hanged chinos. No wonder the Romans always respected the true hard working honest locals throughout their Empire for thousand of years, it was the key to their success. The new rich Chinos are still just coming out of the caves marveling at all that glitters and killing those who have integrity.
      Thanks Pepe for your accurate comments and all the best for 2015!

      • GhostOfChe

        Romans were thugs, as are all who advocate murder. Try a little peace and love, deary.

      • Guest

        Thanks Carla, we are presently working on rearranging the Speaker of the House a the Whip otherwise without the Tea Party the GOP becomes a minority. Let the good times roll!

    • GhostOfChe

      Fact? No, your wishful thinking. Try as hard as you might to spin things your TeaBag noisy way,no one is fooled. In the actual USA the TeaBags are the laughing stock of the country. No one takes them seriously except the disgraced neocons climbing back under their rocks.

      • xanadu

        You could not be more wrong about the strong support that the Tea Party receives by true conservatives in the USA

    • dalepues

      Gosh,
      You really think President Ortega is afraid of “collective reaction, the world over”?
      You really believe that Russia is totally broken? Venezuela and Iran too? What do you mean by broken? Do you mean they have all collapsed and their governments and societies have ceased to function, and all their citizens wander the streets looking for scraps? Is that what you mean by broken? Or do you mean you saw some flash-bang-shiny on the tele and things look bad, from where you sit?
      U.S. Congress does not act alone in creating law and must get the President’s signature on any legislation.
      Your last statement just doesn’t make any sense: “…the path to Ortega’s demise is about to be played.”
      How do you play a path? If you were struggling to say that some great action is about to taken against President Ortega, presumably by the Republican Majority and the Tea Party guards, perhaps you would like to let us all in on the details.

  • Ken Morris

    From the longer article: “Aminta Granera, told Sandinista media that 33 people were arrested and 21 injured, mostly her officers.” The article also mentions the hijacking of an oil tanker truck by the protesters, who threatened to blow it up, as well as the usual bonfires of tires in the roadway.

    I have already stated and will do so again that I don’t agree with the way that the expropriation of private property is being mishandled, and can’t for the life of me figure out why those in charge don’t state an explicit and fair policy of compensation. The amount of money involved is small potatoes, but remaining vague about it just elicits legitimate outrage from those affected, those who worry that they may be affected, and their symparthizers (like me). Those in charge are ultimately responsible for these protests.

    However, at the street level where these protests are being enacted, I’m finding it hard to swallow the spin that the protesters are innocent victims. Come on, when more cops than protesters are hurt, and when the protesters are even threatening to blow up a stolen oil tanker, I can’t conclude that the authorities are overreacting.

    Ideally those in charge will state an explicit and fair policy of compensation, but also ideally the protesters will remain nonviolent.

    • juancho

      sorry ken, you’re left leaning is just ridiculous. do you actually believe that 21 cops got hurt? are there pictures of them posted as well? maybe they were hurt punching the daylights out of unarmed protesters. i don’t defend any illegal acts by protesters. however, when the illegal government and its lackey police and army commit illegal acts such as arbitrarily preventing law abiding citizens from partaking in civil demonstrations, threatening to confiscate buses and trucks that plan to transport said citizens and setting up road blocks, it is natural to think that said citizens will respond in kind. frankly, i applaud them. it’s a damn shame there aren’t more of them committing more acts of civil disobedience as opposed to the vast majority of nicas who are sitting back idle with their hands on the laps, saying simply, “asi es.”

      and you, the guy that wrote the unauthorized bio of the head thief can’t figure out why they are being secretive about the policy of compensation? really? are you that naive, or is your head up some sandinista backside?

      whortega and his clan are secretive because what they do is illegal. the entire canal process, law, and assorted related matters has been and will always be illegal. just as much so as whortega’s supreme court lackeys declaring the constitution itself unconstitutional because it set forth term limits! i suppose you defend that, or just ignore it.

      the amounts involved in the illegal expropriation may be small potatoes to you, but clearly you’ve not though the matter through. they plan on taking away not just peoples’ property but their very livelihood! i suppose you think that simply paying a farmer for the base value of his land is fair and just. of course the value of the land is small in the grand scheme of things, but you’re talking about dispossessing and displacing thousands of people with absolutely no plan on what to do with them after. no plan on how to help them survive with their sole source of income gone. all the thieves care about is giving the land to the shell company in the caymans, set up one day before the canal law passed. a company who’s beneficial owners will never be revealed–likely because the canal is merely a front for whoretega to personally steal more money and land.

      i am all for violent uprisings against this illegal government. they should all be lined up and terminated with prejudice–from the top all the way down to lowest.

      • Ken Morris

        You might want to exercise more care before leaping to conclusions, and I would appreciate a little more civility.

        About the 21 cops getting hurt, all I did was quote the article. You may believe that the cops weren’t really hurt, or that they were only hurt in retaliation for their abuses, and you might be right. My question though is: How do you know? There’s no basis in the article for your interpretation. Unless you have some access to facts about the incident that you don’t mention, I’m afraid that you are simply distorting the reported facts to fit the interpretation you prefer, which is frankly a pretty ridiculous way to form an opinion.

        Regarding being “that naive,” I plead guilty and would love to be better informed. Unfortunately, you don’t help.

        Here’s the puzzle as I see it: While I’m not positive, my strong suspicion is that Ortega (or more likely one of his henchman) doles out millions of dollars annually to buy support from legislators, judges, and others (like Rivas). I also think that he has plenty more money from where those millions come from. Meanwhile, our Caymen Islands guy is already promising to put like $40 to $50 billion into the canal project. Basically, there’s a lot of money available to buy political support, plus an apparent pattern of money being spent for that.

        Now, I understand that the displaced campesinos may number around 7000. Suppose that the fair market value of their property plus the costs of resettling them with dignity comes to $25,000 each. I suspect this estimate is way high, both because I doubt their land is on the average worth that much and because I suspect that the 7000 count is of individuals rather than families. (Would it really require $125,000 to fairly compensate a family of five for expropriating their property and relocating them with dignity?) But lets go with the $25,000 figure. At this the total cost only comes to $175 million. Moreover, since even if the campesinos are grossly cheated the government will surely pay them some compensation, we need to substract whatever that low compensation will be from the $175 million. Just roughing it out, it’s hard for me to believe that it would cost more than $100 million to treat the campesinos fairly, and this is small potatoes for the project–far less than 1% of its budgeted costs.

        What’s hard for me to fathom is why Ortega and Wang aren’t simply paying it. If the canal budget is so tight that the funds aren’t available, then I’m here to tell you that this is a really sketchy business proposition. Moreover, since the PR the canal is receiving as a result of the protests is very bad, it only makes sense to me to spend the relatively small amount of money required to make the PR more favorable. Not least, while I can’t get inside his head, this kind of political blunder is very unlike Ortega. Like him or hate him, he is at minimum good at politics.

        I therefore don’t understand why Ortega seems to be making a political blunder of the first order, and thus confess to being naive. The only thing I know, or think I know, is that Ortega usually thinks several moves ahead of his opponents. It’s possible that he has a strategy to correct this blunder and turn it into a political victory, but I’ll be darned if I can figure out what that strategy is. It’s frankly just looking like a big mistake to me, which may make me naive.

        With respect to the canal and much of what Ortega does being illegal, I always wonder with what legal theory these accusations are made. No doubt many legislators and judges are on the take, or conversely threatened financially if they don’t vote or rule as requested, but isn’t there often an element of self-interest and even greed in legislative votes and court rulings? Of course there is. The question is how tainted a legislator or judge must be before we conclude that their votes or rulings are illegal, and I don’t know where to draw that line.

        Worse, to what legal authority can anyone appeal even if we conclude that votes or rulings are so tainted by corruption that they are illegal? In most countries, including Nicaragua, the final legal authority is the constitution–and the consitution says whatever the supreme court rules that it says. To what legal authority are people appealing when they declare a ruling by Nicaragua’s supreme court illegal? Although there are various legal theories of universal law, they are contentious. To my mind, I don’t see an alternative to admitting that what is or isn’t legal is determined by legislative votes and court rulings, no more and no less.

        What I think is really behind the accusation that the government and canal are illegal is the belief that what is or isn’t legal was set once and for all before Ortega’s recent presidency and can’t be changed. This line of legal reasoning though amounts to privileging one time over another as the correct moment of legal interpretation, but this in turn raises the question of which time ought to be privileged and why. I can find no basis for privileging any one time over another.

        So, while I understand the sentiments that fuel it, I can’t agree that the Ortega regime is necessarily illegal, and don’t see why I should subscribe to anyone’s legal reasoning that tells me that it is. The only outcome of that is that someone’s opinion about what is and isn’t legal is elevated above legislative actions and court rulings, and this is no place any of us wants to go.

        Thus, finally, I can’t disagree with you more about violent uprisings. This is how Ortega rose to power in the first place, and overthrowing him this way is only going to produce another dictator like him. Sure, the replacement dictator may be right as opposed to left, or whatever the ideological divides are, but a dictator is still a dictator.

        The only solution for Nicaragua is for people to reject the mistaken fantasy that perpetuating the cycle of violence will bring about worthwhile change and slog away at the less sensational and more arduous tasks of building the kinds of democratic institutions that check dictators and their excesses. This means not taking or giving a bride, and reporting those who do. It means waging one court fight after another, even though you lose most of them. It means not being a member of the FSLN simply because membership gives you access to a better job. It means, above all, believing that the rule of law can still prevail, and fighting for it to prevail, since the alternative of allowing opinions or violence or corruption to determine what is and isn’t legal is worse.

        It also means, I think, plenty of nonviolent protests against actions like the expropriation of property without due process. I want to see the campesinos out there demanding fairness. But when they hijack an oil tanker and threaten to blow it up, I part company with them. This kind of protesting undercuts the aim of the protest, which is to insist upon a rule of law, not merely to get your own way by violence.

        • gcblues

          thanks morris you prove you have an unlimited amount of sides to your mouth. end the partido chorizo, but buy people’s liberty and property rights at a morris determined “dignity price. apparently you missed john locke. ortega is smart but does consistently stupid stuff. violence produces only more dictatorship while violence is what is keeps dictators in power. i could go on and on. i feel sorry for your mind. it must be a hell of a confusing place. there are no public non-sandinista jobs. there is no due process. there is no news or reliable information official or otherwise allowed. shoot the messenger with your mouth. the message delivered is all there is. you think there is some way news can be found other than chisme or canal 10 here then you are nuts. so you are just saying shut up? i certainly am, to you!

          tell you what. screw the politics, the liberty, the opinions. find me some engineers, or investment bankers that think this has a tinkers chance in hell of functioning. when they are not found, think of alternative reasoning for the whole kit and caboodle. it is called “implicative evidence”. when enough pieces of the inductive jigsaw puzzle are there for all to see the picture it becomes clear. morris says nothing, knows nothing, adds nothing, sees nothing. the canal is nothing more than a 5 year USSR agricultural plan designed to steer resources to the powers in the party and stabilize their power. punta. fin de historia. study Brezhnev reforms for Christ sake. &(%*&$#@!@#. the sadness continues.

          • Ken Morris

            Actually, Courteous George, I didn’t miss Locke. In case you did, here’s a fairly recent law review article discussing Locke’s view of property rights as modified by the government’s right to expropriate private property for the public good:

            http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3727&context=mlr

            However, I’m not sure how much weight Locke’s views should carry in Nicaragua, since its legal-philophical heritage is more Spanish and Catholic-collectivist than Locke’s British individualism. Although I can’t say for sure, I would guess that the legal framework within which Nicaragua operates would be less protective of individual property rights than is Locke. Even so, the government’s legitimate expropriation of property for the public good with just compensation finds justification in Locke too.

            Anytime you’re up to dicussing Locke’s views, please post. I find him a fascinating fellow. You, not so much.

          • gcblues

            courteous is just a way for you to hide. so your idea of defining Locke is to use another left wing professor’s view. you are unable to read the man’s social contract plainly. plainly a challenge to the state over the individual so you seek to perforate the sole purpose of Locke’s state which is preserve individual liberty and turn it in into a profs fantasy collective. fall back, anglo not franco. no right or wrong. you are useless. you broach no argument. you respond to no challenge. you just issue them. how much time have you spent in Nicaragua? when have you managed a business? met payrolls? managed tens, hundreds, thousands of people?? what physical projects or production facilities have your started and run successfully? what do you know other than theoretical fantasy? you have a lot of nerve issuing a challenge. you do not find Locke a fascinating fellow, you can’t even read him. i ran into the same thing at the university in the 70’s. people teaching Aristotle never having read his extent portions. like you try to instruct social order when you cannot even drive a damn car. Morris, not very much. you want to discuss Locke. what a laugh. discuss what qualifies you to post your drivel. challenge Morris’s posts. look at his discombobulated notions. his uncorroborated assertions. the abundant “on the other hands”. see the vile veiled demand for individual submission in his “courteous” ramble. for years i laughed at this guys posts. now you are screwing with my family, my bario, and your vile, negligent, unsupported assertions need to be countered.

          • Ken Morris

            I realize that you have no use for left-wing professors, and assume this attitude of yours extended to the left-wing grammar school teachers when they were trying to teach you grammar and punctuation, but the rest of us may need help understanding sentences like this:

            “plainly a challenge to the state over the individual so you seek to
            perforate the sole purpose of Locke’s state which is preserve individual
            liberty and turn it in into a profs fantasy collective.”

            Maybe the explanation is that Spanish is your first language and you just have difficulties with English, but then it’s a puzzle why you misspell “barrio” too.

            Of course, I get it: Because you have some background in business and drive a car, you feel qualified to discourse on any topic you wish, no matter how little you know about it or how inadequate your reasoning. Even more, you feel entitled to repeatedly insult me when you clearly don’t even know what you’re talking about much less what I say.

            PS. Although it’s hardly an accomplishment I’m as proud of as you are, I actually can drive a car and even have a license. There’s a difference between not being able to do something and choosing not to do it.

          • gcblues

            no answers again. done nothing. limited or no time in Nicaragua.

            Locke, the basis of the USA’s fifth amendment according to Madison. invoking Natural law, as scotus thomas does i am sure is hard for you to understand. not my problem.

          • KenLooksLikeAPedofile

            Ken Morris – you look like a pedofile.

          • gcblues

            as much as i dislike your ideology and support you butting out on Nicaragua because clearly you are not here, have maybe never been here and refuse any inquiry to you experience here. have no investment or business experience and have as much chance of understanding a P & I statement as something written in hieroglyphics. plus your stupid assertion that locke in either treatise or of civil government came anywhere close to justifying the non-transparent takings of property in a country with no due process whatsoever …. that is written into the canal law you know right … even with my disgust for you, i do not post accusations of pedophilia or post anonymously. that should be flagged and deleted. no uninformed stupid government is your mom and dad people like yourself deserves that. shunning si’, trolling, no.

          • Ken Morris

            Please stop attributing assertions to me that I never advanced and never would advance just so you can call me “stupid” again. Where did I ever support the non-transparent taking of property without due process–much less attribute that position to Locke? It’s getting tiring having to rebut baseless accusations, and in fact you are violating my property rights as Locke defined them. Property is not limited to real estate by Locke, but includes one’s person, ideas, etc. You’re trespassing on my property rights by attacking me personally and attributing things to me that aren’t true.

            It’s fine if you disagree with me, and fine if you believe that the number of days in Nicaragua and familiarity with profit and loss statements are the prerequisites for commenting on events in the country (or Locke for that matter). These are your opinions, and you are entitled to express them. That’s what civil discourse is all about. But it’s simply not fair for you to distort what I write in order to disagree with your distortions, and quite rude of you to continue insulting me personally. Please stop this.

          • gcblues

            meowwwww. hitting close to home, so sorry for you.

            was it not you responding to my Locke mention that he sanctioned private takings? should you not be qualified to make suggestions that the canal be economically viable? for the common good you guess with no authoritative experience what so ever? you asserted you see no other development options. what experience do you have to make such an outrageous claim? to make outrageous claims should you not have some experience in Nicaragua or business or anything other than academia? lay em out Morris!

            why should responses to someone, you, making outrageous assertions with no backing be treated more civilly? i do not distort what you write Morris, i call it out. note another discussion i had with a clear supporter of the canal. he clearly lives here. he clearly has experience with the Nicaraguan government. he and i clearly did not agree and had a respectful conversation. something you and i will not have because your opinions are baseless. you have been called out to support your opinions and declined. i do not comment about any of the nonsense you post on other topics for years. as noted i laughed at you for years. now you are mouthing off “civilly” about a place you apparently have little experience with about topics you apparently have little experience with about a place where my family lives. yeah, a P&L, and economic CBA based on experience should support your posts, but they do not. that is dumb bunny stuff. don’t like it? oh well. pound sand. i have made serious points, you rebut none. i have asked for what support you offer for your assertions that this project is viable, that Nicaragua lacks other development options. you offer no support. i made the distinction between opinions based on fantasy left wing theory and actual experience. you declined to respond. i don’t insult you Morris, you insult you.
            now if i were to post troll crap like the other guy noting looks, you would have a beef. in this case. i am right. i have the beef. you got nuttin but empty unappreciated butt in nothingburger words. violating your “property rights” what a laugh. thnx for that anyway. how about you just observe the process between the people that are here and reserve your comments to things you have a clue about.

          • Ken Morris

            1. Locke does permit government taking of private property for the public good. I’m not to blame if you don’t understand Locke.

            2. I never suggested that the canal will be economically viable, and here you go again putting words in my mouth. Canal engineering, economics, and so forth have been topics I’ve purposely not weighed in about because I simply don’t know. Truthfully, I suspect that some who do weigh in on these issues don’t know either, and my guess is that you are among those who don’t, but I’ve let the rest of you debate all this. My position has always been that if some guy wants to invest billions of dollars into Nicaragua for a canal, it’s his problem whether or not the canal is successful. Since meanwhile Nicas get the influx of investment capital anyway, as long as serious lines of property expropriation and environmental damages aren’t crossed, I figure that Nicas benefit from the project, so I cautiously favor it.

            3. I refuse to lay out my qualifications for offering an opinion, and if you notice I never have. Others mention this or that about my background, and I can’t help that. I think that a person’s background is irrelevant to the quality of their opinions, and believe that opinions should be evaluated on their own merits, not by credentials or experience. Heck, Socrates was a lazy stone cutter; he had no credentials or experience. You seem however to believe opinions are properly evaluated by the experiences of the person offering them, and conveniently prioritize experiences like business, driving, and living in Nicaragua that you have had. I don’t follow how these experiences especially qualify you to opine about the canal, Locke, or anything else. Whether they do or don’t, we just disagree about evaluating opinions by the background of the person offering them, and I refuse to acquiesce to your demand that I post a resume or the like simply because you want one.

            4. You and I both know that you did not comment on any of what you call my “nonsense” for years because that was on another publication in Costa Rica from which you and you alone were banned by the editor from posting because of your constant rude and bullying comments. I had nothing to do with this, and in fact only discovered that you had been banned after you attacked me on the Dispatch and I decided to ask that editor if you are the one he banned from his publication. Think about this, George. When you alone out of thousands of readers are banned, the problem might be you.

            4.5. Just an aside, since it appears that you used to live in Costa Rica, I wonder how much time you have really lived in Nicaragua. Of course, since you see the country through a windshield, I can’t imagine that you see much.

            5. Nope, George, you haven’t come close to hitting close to home yet. Your attacks on me are so baseless that they don’t wound at all. Frankly, I’ve yet to read anything in your posts that even interests me from the standpoint of content. I’m only responding to your posts because you keep distorting my posts and insulting me. Unfortunately, this makes you a pest, a nuisance, a trespasser, not a debate opponent. You’re like the hombres de la calle who periodically sleep under my porch, just a fellow with problems who inflicts them onto me. I want you to stop harassing me, that’s all.

          • gcblues

            1. our posts stand on Locke, i will let the evidence rest

            2. read your own posts they contradict this point.

            3. i stand by supportable and unsupportable opinion distinctions.

            4. i was banned because tim said he did something he did not do and i publicly called him out on it. lot of ruder folks than i on that blog. believe what you wish but that is silly considering the routine posts allowed there.

            4.5. pure bogus chismes. i have had property in Nicaragua since 07. more than one. that i also have property in costa rica you and your chismes friend make assumptions you know nothing about. you care to know. ask. like i have of you. if i make points, people haave a right and reason on what basis i make them.

            5. the points i have made have been on point of topic. the reason you find them personal is because you can’t support your assertions and i call you on that. if you want to call that harassing oh well. think of the people here afraid to lose property or busted for traveling to a protest.and reconsider the word choice, electio verborum. harassment is not accurate.

          • Ken Morris

            OK, you can have the last word. I just hope it is the last.

          • gcblues

            here let me post this from wikki so you can distinguish the
            difference between a right guaranteed by birth and a state dictated
            right or removal thereof. obviously, you missed that week.

            “Natural
            and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those
            bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. Natural rights
            are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any
            particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., cannot be sold, transferred, or removed).”

            gosh golly. which type of rights were important to Locke.

            dummy.

          • Ken Morris

            The issue in Locke in this instance isn’t natural v. legal rights, it’s under what circumstances and to what extent individuals properly give up a portion of their natural rights for the benefits they receive from the socal compact.

            You might want to at least stick to the issue before you start calling others a dumnmy.

          • gcblues

            you might like to respond to questions before asking new ones.

            you have not read Lockes social contract.

        • gcblues

          here let me post this from wikki so you can distinguish the difference between a right guaranteed by birth and a state dictated right or removal thereof. obviously, you missed that week.

          “Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. Natural rights
          are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any
          particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., cannot be sold, transferred, or removed).”

          gosh golly. which type of rights were important to Locke.

          dummy.

  • Pepe Turcon

    Barack…I am Gay and maybe you are also but this is the kiss of death but take down your pants anyway

  • Pepe Turcon

    Political correctness is a form of thought and speech control. You will notice that it is only thoughts and words which liberals don’t like that fall under the guise of not being politically correct. They decide – you obey – or else.
    There should be no such thing as a word that people in a free society can’t say. Free speech is free speech. Anything else is controlled speech.
    As for skin color, only a collectivist/racist groups people by skin color and assigns values to them. Democrats tend to see people by which group they belong to rather than as individuals. This is collective thinking – the same thinking as a racist. Only Individualism as a human relational philosophy will cure this type of collective/group thinking. Free thinkers are always individualist.

    • dalepues

      Because you started out talking about political correctness being speech and thought control, and then went on to collectivist and racist and individualists, I had to go to Wikipedia for a definition of “political correctness”. Wiki:

      “Political correctness or political correctitude[1] (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used by some conservatives to describe the attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage. Mainstream usage of the term began in the 1990s by right-wing politicians who used the term as a shorthand way of conveying their concerns about the left in academia and in culture.”
      So, according to this paragraph from Wiki, what you’re saying is just some right wing stuff, mostly stuff you don’t like about people who are different from you, and you stuck that thing on at the end about how it’s best to be an individualist, like you must be. You think apparently someone, liberals, Democrats, collectivists, who knows, is limiting your free speech and working on controlling your thoughts. Where? How exactly are they doing this? You ought to be good enough to show us where you’ve been held back from saying exactly how you feel, or explain which of your thoughts are actually the result of liberal mind control.
      So far, in this one post, you’ve pretty much called all Democrats racists who want to control your speech and your mind. Is that not collective thinking? I don’t know how other conservatives reason, but I hope they don’t reason like you and expect anyone to understand or agree with them.

  • itaia

    “Despite being one of the poorest countries in Latin America, Nicaragua has IMPROVED its access to potable water and sanitation and has AMELIORATED the life expectancy, infant and child mortality and immunization rates”. The opinion of the CIA in its 2014 “Handbook” ! The CIA also knows that 74% of Nicaraguan women use contraceptives. 84% of Nicaraguans live in urban settings. 69% Mestizo, 17% white, 5% Indigenous, 8% Black. Also the fertility rate per woman in Nicaragua is now a low 2% – nevertheless – Nicaragua is going to have 100,000 new people to feed and employ, EACH YEAR, until 2020: Because the demographic turnover is fast caused by teen-age reproduction. 45% of Nicas are younger then 23. Costa Rica has absorbed a half a million Nicas and is now cracking down with deportations and a one mile long, 8 foot border fence at the most prominent border crossing. With Pepe Turcon’s “Tea Squad” breathing down the neck of U.S. Congress – immigration from Nicaragua and Latin America, legal or illegal to the USA is not going to be the solution in coming years for Nicas. Thus development in Nicaragua is the only solution – whether comes with the Sandinistas or the opposition, whether comes with the canal or what you got ? The USA has never even developed its “territories” Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands – and the majority of those U.S. citizens (since 1917) – have to move to New York or New Jersey to find employment. By the way – the 5 million U.S. citizens who live in the “territories” – Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas CANNOT VOTE FOR PRESIDENT OR US CONGRESS. (Why ? Because 95% would vote for the Democrats. Thus with the rest of the “fixed” U.S. electoral system, “district gerrymandering”, “electoral college” – those 5 million U.S. citizens – who had to serve during the military draft years and wars, cannot vote for the government of their nation: The ruse is “they do not pay federal taxes” while residing in a territory – once they live on the mainland, they have to pay federal and state taxes. But the trick: Those 5 million have to pay steep taxes to their own territorial governments which only get partial subsidy from U.S. Congress. And their costs of living are about 30% higher then on the continental USA because no foreign carrier may transport between freight between the mainland and the territory – only expensive U.S based carriers. Plus the freight distance costs because nothing much is produced on the island territories except a limited amount of tropical fruit. But Nicaragua could develop an industrial base for internal consumption – but for that you need to put real regular income into the pockets of employed Nicas. It’s not possible by only agriculture and the competition from textile assembly and similar can never – even with preferential tarrifs compete with Bagladesh, Vietnam and other nations with an iron-fisted work-culture. Besides, the U.S. with its “strategic pivot” to Asia is interested to keep nations like Vietnam and Bangladesh as “allies” against the Chinese… Thus – a simple lesson: Nicaraguans are going to look out for themselves and grab REAL opportunities