"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - President Ronald Reagan
"The U.S. economy expanded less than
forecast in the first quarter as a smaller contribution from
inventories overshadowed the biggest gain in consumer spending
in more than a year.
Gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services
produced in the U.S., rose at a 2.2 percent annual rate after a
3 percent pace, Commerce Department figures showed yesterday in
Washington. The median projection of economists surveyed by
Bloomberg News called for a 2.5 percent gain. Government
spending fell for a sixth straight quarter."
It means that the US economy is not growing, at least not growing fast enough to offset the recent losses. The recession officially started in November '07 and it ended in June '09. We need the kind of growth that we had in 1983-84 "bounce", or about 8%.
Why isn't the US economy growing? I think that the answer is Pres BO, BO-Care & concerns about new taxes in 2013. We've been operating in a very uncertain landscape and that means that people will hold back. (Professor VD Hanson is right that Pres BO has "investors scared stiff")
Tags:Don't expect Pres BO to talk about the latest GDP numbers To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
Univision's interview with U.S. President Barack Obama last week was supremely disappointing. In fact, I personally have spoken with several Hispanics who felt that Univision did not challenge President Obama's rather outrageous answers.
As they say, the network gave him one "free pass" after another.
Why is it important that Hispanos have reporters who act like journalists rather than people who get "a tingle up their leg" when they sit next to Obama?
The answer is simple. We have a large segment of the Hispanic population that gets its news from one of the two Spanish-speaking networks. Therefore, these networks have a tremendous responsibility to respectfully ask and challenge elected officials.
I would like to submit these sample questions and some follow-ups to the reporters for the next time that they sit down with Obama:
1) Mr. President: why didn't you send an immigration proposal to Congress? You had 60 votes in the U.S. Senate and a big majority in the House. The GOP did not have the votes to stop anything.
Let me follow up, Mr. President: were you afraid that the Democratic majority would not support you?
2) Mr. President: why don't you call on the current Democratic Senate majority to put immigration reform to a vote? Your party has a 53-47 majority!
Let me follow up, Mr. President: again, are you afraid that the Democrats have a majority but not the votes to pass immigration reform? Are you afraid that "pro-labor" Democrats won't pass a plan that includes guest visas? We saw some of that when you were a senator and carrying the water of the labor unions back in 2007. Have you seen the article that Ruben Navarrette wrote about you? Ruben clearly states that you are not being honest about immigration reform.
3) Mr. President: why didn't you call on a Dem Congress to put the DREAM Act to a vote before the 2010 election? What message does that send to the millions of Hispanics who gave the Democrats their vote?
4) Mr. President: Hispanics have been hit very hard by this recession. Why is unemployment over 10% in the Hispanic community? Why didn't the $787-billion stimulus work?
5) Mr. President: why don't you support education vouchers so that Hispanic parents can choose schools for their children?
Let me follow up, Mr. President: why do you continue to put the teachers' union over Hispanic parents?
Let me ask you: why did you send your daughters to a private school in Chicago? Weren't the Chicago public schools good enough for your children?
6) Mr. President: we have many viewers on the U.S.-Mexico border. Who approved putting 2,000 guns in the hands of Mexican cartels? When will we know who signed off on this program?
Why is it so hard to get an explanation about this issue from your administration?
Let me follow up, Mr. President: you apologized to Afghanistan when some U.S. soldiers inadvertently burned a Koran. Will you apologize to the Mexican people for the deaths that resulted from Fast & Furious? Are Mexican lives worth less than Afghans'?
7) Mr. President: our staff has done some research and discovered that the Arizona lawsuit does not accuse that state of "racial profiling" or violations of civil rights. In fact, here is a link to a news story by Jake Tapper of ABC News on that point.
So, Mr. President, is it honest for you keep "scaring" Hispanics about Arizona? Again, your Justice Department did not mention "civil rights" or "racial profiling" when it filed a lawsuit against Arizona.
Have you read your government's lawsuit? Do you understand it? Is it fair to play the "racial profiling" card when your lawsuit does not mention it?
When did Gov. Romney ever say that the Arizona law was a "model" for the country? What specific speech? Our staff cannot find it in any Romney speech.
8) Mr. President: there are thousands of Hispanic parents with sons in Afghanistan. When will you ever deliver a speech explaining our mission and our reasons for staying there? You have not made a major speech about Afghanistan since you announced that 30,000 troops were headed there.
9) Mr. President: we heard from our colleagues in Latin America that there is a sense that your administration has neglected the region. Why do so many leaders of Latin America complain that you don't have a policy or agenda for the region?
Let me follow up. You opposed free trade agreements. You wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. You were against CAFTA and the recently approved Colombia FTA. Were you wrong in your position on these matters? Will you say today that Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain were right about free trade agreements?
10) Let me ask you about Solyndra and other green tech companies facing bankruptcy. The common denominator in these companies is that the ownership comprises rich Democrats who contributed to your campaign.
Why do rich Democrats like Robert Kennedy, Jr. need a federal loan guarantee, anyway? Why didn't he use his family money to get a loan?
11) Mr. President: is there a managerial problem in your administration? Are you being well-served by your staff? There is a sense that you are very detached from day-to-day governing. Are you on top of things?
I don't know if anyone at Univision will ask these questions. At the same time, I think that the Spanish media needs to get in the game and start holding Obama accountable.
Unfortunately, Telemundo and Univision, as well as most of the Spanish-speaking media, think that Hispanics are interested only in immigration. In fact, Hispanics are interested in a variety of issues, from reckless spending to an unclear mission in Afghanistan to an economy that does not produce jobs, not to mention a president who is very good at "coqueteo" rather than governing.
As I mentioned above, we want Spanish-speaking reporters who ask questions rather than people who get a tingle up their leg in the presence of Obama. Click here for our Saturday commentary:
Tags:Time for Univision and Telemundo to man up To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
"In fact, the gender gap is smaller now than it has been in recent
history. In 2004, 2000 and 1996, the gender gap was larger than it is in
the Rasmussen poll — and in the election of 2000 it was much larger."
The truth is Gov Romney is doing a lot better with women than Pres BO is with men.
There is your gender gap!
Why do men vote GOP and women vote Dem?
The answer is actually very complicated. The GOP has always done well with married white women with children. The numbers are even better if they attend church regularly.
The Dems' "male" problem is very real and based on the perception that the party is weak and soft on foreign policy. There are not a lot of white males in the Dem party anymore: White males fading among House Democrats
At the end of the day, this is all about numbers. Based on current numbers, it is Pres BO who has a "gender gap" problem.
Tags:The real gender gap is BO & men To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
Mitt Romney correctly said this about the GSA scandal:
"“People have to see that the president is nottaking elaborate
vacations and spending in a way that is inconsistent with the state of
the overall economy and the state of the American family.”" (viaNR)
Yes, it starts at the top with Pres BO & Mrs MO.
We learned that Mrs MO's Spanish vacation cost over $460,000:
"According to a Judicial Watch analysis, the records indicate a total combined cost of at least $467,585." (NR)
We understand that Mrs MO is entitled to a vacation and the security that goes along with it. However, do we have to pay for a $467,585 vacation?
This is not playing well in the country. According to Paul Bedard, there is a lot of anger among blue collar Dem voters.
"During the focus group discussions about debt and spending cuts, many
in his group volunteered criticism of the presidential vacations as
something that should be cut.
Among the lines McLaughlin wrote down was
one from a Democratic woman who said, “Michelle Obama spends $1 million
to take the kids to Hawaii,” and another who said, “President Obama was
the only president to take so many trips.”
The theme, said McLaughlin, is that the first family “is out of touch” with working class voters."
Do you blame the voters? We have a $1 trillion deficit. We have a GSA scandal. Again, do you blame the voters? They told the pollsters that they want these vacations cut or stopped.
Tags:Michelle Obama's vacations are turning into a huge problem for Pres BO To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
In a previous post, we spoke about Pres BO's problem with men. Yes, men have historically seen the Dem party as weak on foreign policy. They've had that problem since the left took over the Dem party in 1972. In other words, LBJ, JFK, Truman and FDR did not have that problem.
Today, the Obama reelection campaign has a new TV ad.
We call it "The Obama killed Osama" TV ad. It is obviously intended to show that Pres BO is decisive, tough and will kill terrorists whenever he gets a chance:
As we posted before, Pres BO was correct in taking out Osama if the opportunity presented itself.
It did and Pres BO made the decision to send The Navy Seals.
Congratulations Pres BO. Good decision!
However, this is a bit more complicated than that.
We got the "tip" that OBL was in that house from information obtained in Guantanamo, or the same place that Pres BO wanted to close:
"Detainees at Guantanamo Bay provided
the crucial breakthrough in hunting down Osama Bin Laden, American
officials said last night. Senior
officials in the Obama administration said intelligence gained from
interrogations at the U.S. base was directly responsible for helping
security forces track down and kill Bin Laden." (UK)
Did we hear that in "Obama killed Osama" TV ad? The answer is no.
Did we hear that Pres BO did not support opening or detaining terrorists in GITMO? The answer is no.
Pres Clinton is in this TV ad. We hear Pres Clinton correctly saying that presidents are the ones who have to make the tough calls.
First, killing Osama was the best dividend that came from Pres Bush opening GITMO.
Second, the TV ad overlooks another reality. Pres BO has kept all of those Bush anti-terror policies that he ran against. I guess Pres BO realized that governing was a lot more complicated than telling immature "yes we can" screamers what they wanted to hear at those university rallies.
Congratulations to Pres BO for reversing his campaign promises, i.e. keeping GITMO open and continuing the Bush anti-terror policies. Click here for the Friday commentary:
Tags:The new " Obama killed Osama" Ad does not say that we got the info from detainees in Guantanamo To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
First of all, someone should tell all of those marching outside the court that the Obama administration is not charging Arizona with racial profiling or violations of civil rights.
Let's confirm it with this exchange between Justice Roberts and Mr Verrilli, speaking for the Obama administration:
"“No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic
profiling, does it?” he asked Verrilli, who agreed." (DallasNews)
This is very important because the Obama administration has been "pandering", and actually lying, to Hispanics over this law. At the end of the day, the Obama administration is simply saying that the federal government rather than a state has a responsibility over immigration.
Second, it's hard to argue that Arizona is wrong when it simply wants to enforce federal immigration laws.
Again, Arizona did not create immigration laws, open an "Arizona Customs Office", establish an embassy in Mexico City, or issue Arizona passports. It did not invent laws to enforce. It simply wants an opportunity to enforce the laws that Dem & GOP Congresses have passed over the years.
The Obama case looks weak because it was based on purely political reasons.
The Obama administration, and Dem congressional majorities, did not pass any immigration reform as promised. They are trying to compensate by scaring and distracting Hispanics that Arizona is some police state where the authorities will target people who look "hispano". (By the way, what does looking "hispano" look like anyway?)
Again, it does not look like the Justices are buying the arguments.
At one point, we heard this:
"“You can see it's not selling very well,” Justice Sonia
Sotomayor, a member of the court's liberal wing and its first Hispanic justice,
told Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., referring to a central part of
his argument against the measure." (DallasNews)
The Obama administration is in real trouble if Justice Sotomayor is not buying their arguments.
It looks like the Arizona law will stand and states will be allowed to do what a weak president does not want to do. The Justices understand that we live in a nation of laws NOT one where laws are enforced selectively to distract one group from campaign promises not kept.
Our friends at Power Line have a wonderful assessment of the Supreme Court hearing. I agree with this:
"You can read the entire argument here
and draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion, the problem was not
with Verrilli but rather with the quality of the arguments that he was
required to make by his client, the Obama administration."
Let me say it again. The Obama administration went after Arizona for purely political and cynical reasons.
It had nothing to do with the merits of the law.
It had everything to do with a president who couldn't get his party to pass a law that he promised to pass.
He didn't do it and now he wants Hispanics to forget about his failure by lying about Arizona.
My guess is that all of those well meaning people cheering outside the court will be very disappointed in late June.
Hispanics disappointed again with Obama? What's new? Disappointment has been the order of the day since millions of Hispanics subscribed to that fantasy called "si se puede"!
Tags:CONFIRMED: The Arizona lawsuit was not about racial profiling or civil rights. It was about distracting hispanos from failed promises & high unemployment To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
On Tuesday night, Gov Mitt Romney practically wrapped up the GOP nomination. We trust that Newt Gingrich will shut it down and join the rest of us in defeating Pres BO.
Romney delivered the best speech of the campaign. It was his best since that 2008 "religion" speech at the Bush Library at Texas A&M.
Romney's message was reminiscent of Reagan '80. He focused on a positive message. He spoke about the greatness of the people and the vision of the Founders. Again, he looked very presidential.
What's next? We have 4 months before the convention and almost 7 before the election.
What should Romney do?
First, stay away from discussions or answering questions about the VP. He will make the announcement in late August or right before the convention.
Second, Romney should deliver a major speech every week. He should deal with major themes, including a trip to Europe and Israel later this summer.
Third, Romney should not respond to desperate "class warfare" attacks. He should let the PAC's and surrogates do that.
It's early and this is going to be a tough election. However, Romney is off to a good start and everyone needs to rally behind him.
Tags:Romney's speech and a few other thoughts To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
I guess that the big $787 billion didn't stimulate after all. I guess that all of those "shovel ready" jobs weren't so ready after all!
What happens now?
First, I think that the "self deportation" will continue. It will really pick up if The Supreme Court upholds the Arizona law.
Second, I hope that both countries, and all politicians, can finally address this issue like adults.
We've been strong advocates of a "temporary worker" program that allows US employers to hire people. We like the "brasero" program that Pres Eisenhower negotiated with Mexico in the early 1950's. It worked very well and allowed thousands of Mexicans to come "legally" to the US, work and take "dolares" back home. In fact, the "brasero" program was so effective that the Dems killed it in 1966 under pressure from the labor unions.
The easiest way to curb illegal immigration is to have a legal mechanism, like the "brasero" program of the 1950's, that allows employers and employees to do their business legally and mutually convenient. Let's hope that Pres Romney will sit down with the next Mexican president and work out a "guest worker" plan that makes sense for both countries.
In the meantime, we will watch more and more Mexicans driving home to Mexico and wondering why they fell for the "si se pude fantasia" in the first place. Click here for our chat with Allan Wall:
Tags:Mexicans say "adios" to the Obama economy To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
From 1994, when the Mexican peso collapsed, to our peak employment of 2007, the US was a rather attractive option for thousands of Mexicans looking for work.
First, we did not do a very good job of securing our border. At the same time, it is hard to secure our vast border or control "tourist visas". In other words, a lot of Mexicans came over on a tourist visa and then overstayed the 90 or 180 day period.
Second, we did not enforce our work site laws. It did not help that there were many employers playing "dumb", specially in construction, hotel and "roofing" businesses. They used foreign workers as a "cheap labor" alternative to obeying the work laws.
We don't have the same number of jobs. The border is now a war zone and most people are afraid to cross over. In the past, people were scared of snakes and dehydration. Today, the cartels will kill you.
We are cracking down on small employers, or the ones who've been the primary users of illegal workers. This is a vindication of the efforts by local and state laws cracking down employers who "cheat" by hiring illegal workers.
Looking forward, we need a new president who understands the benefits of legal immigration and the chaotic consequences of illegal immigration. We need one who wants to govern rather than the current occupant who just wants to energize disillusioned hispanos who voted for "hope & change" and got "nada".
Let's hope that Pres Romney sits down with the next Mexican president and revives the "brasero" program of the 1950's.
The "brasero" program was the most effective illegal immigration program in history. In fact, it was so effective that the Dems killed it under pressure from the labor unions.
The new version of the "brasero" program will give our employers a "legal way" to bring temporary workers. It will also eliminate the reason for walking north to look for work without papers.
We discussed this with Allan Wall on Tuesday night:
Tags:SELF DEPORTATION: As expected, Mexicans are going home because there are no jobsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
"Senate Democrats are pushing new legislation aimed at nullifying
Arizona's controversial immigration law -- just in case the Supreme
Court, which hears the case Wednesday, upholds the policy."
Let me translate.
The Dems are scared that the Supreme Court will uphold the Arizona law.
The Dems are freaking out because there is a massive disillusionment with Pres BO in the Hispanic community. It does not help that Hispanics have a 10.7% unemployment rate, or much higher than the overall 8.3% average.
The Dems know that they need a massive turnout in November or Pres BO will lose.
So what do you do? You engage in this kind of outrageous gimmickry, or you insult our intelligence with maneuvers like these.
I repeat: The Dems must think that Hispanos are really stupid. Check out our Tuesday show with Allan Wall:
Tags:Senate Dems must think that "hispanos" are really, really & really stupidTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
For some time, we've been posting about the so called "cartel war" south of the border.
The net result is 40,000 plus Mexicans killed.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has never called on Hollywood to stop glamorizing drugs and the other irresponsible habits that have turned the US into a consumer of Mexican drugs.
Pres BO, or hopefully Pres Romney, should tell Americans a little truth: We consume and Mexicans get killed.
Yes, there is a lot of corruption in Mexico.
Yes, there is a dysfunctional political system in Mexico.
Yes, there are many things to criticize about Mexico. Nevertheless, Pres Calderon and Mexico have battled the cartels that our bad habits are funding.
Again, we consume and Mexicans get killed.
It's time for people in the US to see it that way. Drug consumption, whether recreational or addictive, is funding a violence that will eventually creep north of the border.
Frankly, I'm starting to feel sorry for Pres BO. It appears that no one ever tells him anything.
Nobody told him that we were putting 2,000 guns in the hands of Mexican cartels. No one told AG Holder either!
I guess that an ATF bureaucrat came up with the idea of putting "high powered guns" over an international border and not tell Pres BO, AG Holder or Sec Clinton.
Nobody told him that his Energy Dept was restructuring the Solyndra loan and putting the interests of shareholders (big contributors to the Dem campaign) ahead of taxpayers (you and me).
Solyndra was the first of many "green company" loan guarantees to end up in bankruptcies. Nobody told him that all of these companies had serious flaws in their business plan and could not get loans from private sector banks.
Again, I feel sorry for the guy. He seems to be the last guy in the Obama administration to find out everything.
So what's going on?
We must have a very detached president. Or, we have a president with a hearing problem! They are both bad.
Tags:Fast & Furious, Solyndra, GSA and Cartagena: Pres BO is always the last one to know! To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
It was a busy weekend and the news didn't stop on Monday. Let's look at three stories that caught my attention.
Let's start with the French election.
Based on news reports, it appears that the French have elected the leftist candidate in Round 1. We should add that the right got 20% of the vote and could decide the runoff or Round II.
We understand that the French are angry and want results. However, it's hard to believe that they would turn left and follow another politician over the cliff.
The left does not have answers for France's problems.
The left is all about slogans and the "blame the rich" nonsense that will drive more capital and hard working people out of France. Get ready for some long lines at the US and Canadian embassy in Paris. I hope that the US State Department sent a big box of blank "visa requests" for the surge coming in France.
Question: What leads people to vote for "slogans and speeches"? I don't know but we are talking about France.
Last, but not least, the right had a better than anticipated showing. The right wants immigration controls and the preservation of French culture. At the same time, no one is telling the Europeans to have babies, or the best way to preserve your culture. It's hard to pass on your traditions when you are not having enough babies to replace your population.
My guess is that the French will eventually throw out the leftist government, too.
What does France need? It needs a leader who will tell the French what they don't want to hear. It needs someone who will tell people to work and stop expecting someone else to take care of them.
We will watch the next round but the first round was a display of political immaturity from the French.
Back here, we were caught "off guard" by a column from the public editor of The NY Times.
What
is a public editor? He is an "in house" critic, or someone who is
supposed to listen to the newspapers' critics are saying.
"According to a study
by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The
Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was
significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three
predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House:
George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan."
So what's going on? Why the column now?
I think that there are several things going on.
First,
my guess is that a lot of professional journalists are embarrassed by
the media's "in the tank" coverage of Pres BO. From Solyndra to "Fast
& Furious" to the GSA and Cartagena, this is an administration that
can not answer questions.
Last,
but not least, it is nice to see some self-examination at The NY
Times. It's pleasant to read that they are thinking about their image
and responding to the readers, or better said, their former readers.
Speaking of strange scandals, the White House needs to
answer a simple question: Were the Secret Service agents the only ones
seeing prostitutes in Cartagena?
"CBS News correspondent Whit Johnson reports that a law enforcement
official told CBS News that the latest agent under investigation brought
a woman back to the Hilton Hotel in Cartagena, Colombia, just five days
before President Barack Obama would be staying there."
We are not suggesting that Pres BO was aware of this. Frankly, we don't expect any president to get that involved in security details. However, was someone close to the president aware?
We've seen in the last two years that the Obama administration has a hard time answering questions.
Pres
BO needs to slam the desk and demand an explanation. This is a lot
bigger than just some guys "going rogue" in Cartagena. This is about
protecting the president and other key people. Check out our Monday show:
Tags:Tuesday morning: France, The NY Times & Cartagena To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
