Governor Palin, horseback, at the Reagan Ranch in California
By Gary P Jackson
Many long time supporters of Governor Sarah Palin, those of us who have followed her career since early 2007, a year and a half before she was to be chosen as the Republican nominee for Vice President and became an international figure, have been wondering why the Governor has been silent now that several Republicans, including her good friend Ted Cruz, have announced they are officially in for 2016. Maybe, just maybe we have our answer.
Other than jabs at Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney in her Iowa speech, which prompted Rick Moran at PJ Media to say this ….
Palin sounds like a candidate to me. And she’s teeing off on Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, implying that their establishmentarianism is no better than the status quo — a potent theme that will resonate with the conservative base.
She also implies that Bush/Romney aren’t strong enough to get in the trenches with Hillary and the Clinton machine to duke it out. She certainly describes herself when she says she thinks the GOP candidate should be “considered a bit avante garde.” In fact, the way she describes the ideal candidate is like she’s looking in a mirror…
Palin may have other reasons for running, including denying Romney and Bush a cakewalk to the nomination. Her favorability ratings may be a liability, but her name recognition is far better than any other conservative candidate. Her entrance in the race would be a wild card that could peel off support from both establishment and conservative candidates alike.
I have one pick with Moran’s comments though. The last major poll that included Sarah Palin left her off as a potential candidate, but measured her favorables and unfavorables against a huge field of potential candidates. The 2014 poll had Palin’s favorability at 70%, among Republicans and Republican leaning independents. That’s UP from 67% in 2012 and considerably higher than anyone the pollster, Public Policy Polling, offered up as an actual candidate. Also, people shouldn’t dismiss lightly the fact that Governor Palin has been considered one of the Most Admired Women in the Word in Gallup’s annual survey since 2008, never being ranked lower than third on the list! Palin’s supposed unfavorability is more fantasy than fact!
Governor Palin has focused all of her energy, when it comes to 2016, on Hillary Clinton. She has hammered Hillary for not being able to multi-task, and use one phone for official government business, and one for personal use, going so far as to post a photo of herself, as Governor, holding her newborn son juxtaposed against Hillary’s claimed inability to figure it all out:
In yet another scandal, Hillary was exposed as using her device for both personal and official State Department communications. A big no-no!
Earlier Governor Palin reminded Americans that while Hillary has erased her entire email history at the State Department, after using an illegal computer [something that would have anyone else already serving time in prison] Palin’s own e-mails were put under a microscope with the left wing Washington Post actually asking it’s readers to help scour through some 25,000 emails looking for the “juicy parts” WaPo and it’s readers had hoped to find all kinds of incriminating evidence of SOMETHING, but instead found page after page of e-mails proving that not only was Governor Palin incredibly competent, but proved to be one of the hardest working public servants in the country. Something those of us who have followed Governor Plain for the better part of a decade already knew!
The Palin e-mails also put an end to the lie that she supported and took money for a “bridge to nowhere” when they revealed she wanted to give the money back, and earmark it for replacement of the I-35 Bridge that collapsed in Minnesota, killing and injuring many. Of course, as there was no legal way to do that, the money went to Alaska’s general fund. We have a link to many of Governor Palin’s official e-mails, as well as her outstanding record of accomplishments a Governor, here.
Several days ago Governor Palin posted this on Facebook:
America – ready for Hillary? Some of us are. Join us and begin here…
WATCH the Game-Changing New Video That Drops A Bomb On Hillary And Can Finish Her
Governor Palin has consistently said she is “Ready for Hillary” and not in the way the former Secretary of State and world class criminal thinks!
Which brings us to a new mailer from SarahPAC that is making the rounds on Twitter. The letter is titled “I’m ready for Hillary. Are you? A second header proclaims “The First Shot: Clinton vs Palin” Along with the letter, is a copy of the front page of the Boston Herald, dated January 25, 2015 that screams MAKE WAY FOR SARAH and proclaims: GOP Strategists: A Palin ’16 bid is no joke
These mailers are sent to folks who support SarahPAC.
Here are a couple of the tweets, one showing the letter and the newspaper tear sheet, and one with just the newspaper:
The Boston Herald article is now hidden behind a pay-wall, but our friends at Conservatives4Palin archived it. Here’s the important part:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s announcement that she’s “seriously interested” in running for president in 2016 could shake up the GOP field, say strategists, who point to the former vice presidential hopeful’s strong base, fundraising ability and star power.
“You’ve got to take her seriously because she can raise a lot of money, she has a big following and she has been through a national campaign, which is important to be competitive in a presidential primary,” Republican strategist Chris Brown told the Herald. “I think she really changes the field and she has the potential to hurt a lot of candidates — especially Tea Party conservatives.”
[…]
Former Alabama GOP Chairman Marty Connors said Palin “has built a career around being underestimated.”
“I would immediately put her in as a top- or mid-tier candidate if she decides to run,” Connors said.
[S]he has a built-in constituency and so she wouldn’t have to raise the money that some of the other candidates would and I think she’d be an exciting candidate that a lot of people would rally around.”
As to raising money, I think Haley Barbour got it right when he said of Governor Palin a few years back: “She could raise enough money to burn a wet mule!” In case you don’t speak Mississippian, that means she can raise a hell of a lot of money! But I also agree with Connors, in that she is a known quantity and has not only a huge following, but the ability to attract the news media, who will follow her every move, like the second coming of Elvis!
Governor Palin’s media partner PassCodeCreative recently created a new video for SarahPAC Catch Me If You Can which reminds us about the big stir he bus trip caused a few years back!
Governor Palin and her family drove the media nuts, because she never gave them an itinerary, saying …. rightly so, her trip was about getting out and seeing America and talking to regular Americans, rather than a publicity stunt, like Hillary’s recent Scooby Do bus tour that was a complete and total flop! Governor Palin used this video to make fun of Hillary’s failed tour! And to poke the media again!
In the C4P article we mention above, Steve Flesher links to another Boston Herald article written around the same time by Adriana Cohen that explains the GOP needs a strong Conservative woman, if they intend to defeat Hillary Clinton [or Liz Warren, for that matter]
The GOP needs women on the ticket for many reasons, not least because it steals the Democratic Party’s thunder. They want to be the “first” at breaking cultural barriers and glass ceilings. With Hillary Clinton expected to be their front-runner in 2016, they’ll use her gender as a tactic to gin up support from their base — especially female voters.
I can already see Emily’s List pushing out emails nationwide saying, “Let’s make history by electing the first female president of the United States.”
Cohen goes on to say this about Hillary [and how Sarah is better]: [emphasis mine]
If you’re a female leader on the Democratic ticket, you’re a “hero” regardless of how many times you put your foot in your mouth, embarrass yourself or worse.
We haven’t forgotten Hillary Clinton saying that we should empathize with our enemies or that businesses and corporations don’t really create jobs. Both absurd statements that should disqualify any candidate — male or female — from any race, never mind the top slot.
But if you’re a female conservative? Watch out! Liberals will pounce and do everything they can to marginalize a conservative woman who runs for office no matter how educated, or talented, or accomplished she is. Liberals only “tolerate” others if they agree with them and follow their agenda.
[…]
The reality is Sarah Palin draws huge crowds at speaking engagements, has millions of social media followers and just as many supporters across the nation.
Hillary Clinton has been giving speeches to half-filled rooms.
Look, we have absolutely no idea what Governor Palin is going to do, but after she considered a 2012 run, for a long, long time, and then didn’t, causing a lot of disappointment among supporters, it’s hard to fathom she would do that again, especially as aggressive as this latest mailer is.
One of our longtime readers, Joy, made an interesting point a few days ago. If you remember, on September 3, 2011 Governor Palin made a powerful speech, to a massive crowd in Indianola, Iowa, which our Stacy Drake recorded.
While Governor Palin spoke of Liberty and Freedom, the main focus was crony capitalism.
Governor Palin has been going after in corruption in government for over 20 years, ever since her earliest days as the junior member of the Wasilla city council! She famously took down the entire Republican Party machine, in Alaska, which rivaled Chicago, and it’s thug politics, in it’s depths of corruption!
The book caused a massive stir, as well as top billing on 60 Minutes. Congress passed a law [though later it was quietly neutered] banning lawmakers from insider trading. Both former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi [D-California] and current Speaker John Boehner [R-Ohio] have made tens of millions of dollars using secret insider information.
Peter’s new book, which is set for release May 5, 2015 is already a Number One Best Seller at Amazon!
I’m not sure Joy is off base here at all.
Most people know this, but Peter Schweizer served as Governor Palin’s foreign policy adviser after she left office and created SarahPAC. Peter literally wrote the books [plural] on President Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy, which Governor Palin had adopted as the basis for her own, adding new lessons learned.
What is interesting to me, is after serving under Palin, Peter has written exclusively about corruption in government. Clinton Cash will be his third Best Seller in a row on the subject.
Again, we have no idea what Governor Palin is up, but we have it from sources close to the family that her decision not to run in 2012 came down to strong opposition from her mother and her oldest son, Track.
That said, Governor Palin posted this on Facebook January 22, three days before the Boston Herald article was published:
“Ha! Believe it or not I received this from… my mom!“:
Take from that what you will!
Is it too early to say Palin-Cruz 2016?!? [or Palin-Jindal]
We already have La Raza praising 11 House Republicans for their efforts, and Rep. Gutierrez making appearances with them. Although his comments reflect reality accurately, the title of this article should be: Ramos Resents Republican Presidential Hopefuls Rubio, Cruz who happen to be from Cuban Descent.
Breitbartreported: Speaking at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on Tuesday evening, Ramos said that “for the first time in history, there are two Hispanic candidates running for president.” “Regardless of the criticism Republicans receive from the mainstream press, “Republicans have been doing something right that they have two Hispanic candidates. And the Democrats don’t have a single Hispanic candidate for this election”.
He mentioned that if Cruz or Rubio is on the top of the 2016 ticket, it will be very interesting to see if Hispanic Democrats vote for a Latino candidate. Ramos noted that “the majority of Latinos vote for Democrats” and the “majority of Latinos are of Mexican origin” while Rubio and Cruz are both of Cuban descent. He said Latino voters will be faced with the question about whether they should vote for a Latino candidate just because he is Hispanic.
Ramos is correct: the mainstream press is against Republicans; that includes, of course, his own. Let’s get out of the way the difference between the terms Hispanic and Latino for clarity’s sake, since they are used interchangeably often. Hispanics are from Spain or any of the Spanish speaking countries in Latin America. “Latino” is used as an abbreviated form of “Latino-Americano” (Latin-American), or someone coming from Latin America. Some statistics, too:
Hispanics are the second fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States after Asian Americans. Since 1970, the Latino [should be Hispanic not Latino to avoid confusion] population has increased sixfold, from 9.6 million to 53 million as of 1/1/2012. Its is projected that its share of the U.S. population currently at 17% is expected to reach 29% or to 119 million by 2060, according to the latest projections from the U.S. Census Bureau (2014). This figure includes 38 million Hispanophone Americans, making the US home to the largest community of Spanish speakers outside of Mexico, surpassing Argentina, Colombia, and Spain within the last decade.
Now we get to the point (al punto) of this article: shifting the focus away from what we know about Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, to what we should know -if we didn’t already- about Ramos and Univision, since he brought all of this up:
1. JorgeRamos is the evening news anchor of Noticiero Univision. He was born in Mexico City 57 years ago. He first came to the United States on a one-year certificate program at UCLA Extension and has enjoyed a long career with Univision where he got a job with a work permit in an L.A. affiliate 30 years ago.
“My English was—I couldn’t even understand myself.”
Ramos hosts “Al Punto” a successful political Sunday talk show on Univision. He is part of digital magazine “Fusion” which targets a younger more liberal audience, covering topics he admits could never be aired on Univision. Ramos is very good at what he does; but his influence does not speak for all Hispanics.
“I went on Jon Stewart the other day and I told him,
Ramos constantly refers to himself as an immigrant. Maybe he does it for symbolic reasons. I was curious, so I did a little research and found this:
“Al Punto“debuted on Univision on September 9, 2007, the same day as the first Spanish language U.S. Presidential Debate hosted by Univision.
From the transcript: UNIVISION NETWORK DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE PARTICIPANTS: SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY); SENATOR CHRISTOPHER DODD (D-CT); FORMER SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (DSC); FORMER SENATOR MIKE GRAVEL (D-AK); REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH); SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-IL); AND GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM)
MODERATORS: JORGE RAMOS AND MARIA ELENA SALINAS, UNIVISION NETWORK ANCHORS LOCATION: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, MIAMI, FLORIDA TIME: 7:04 PM EDT DATE: SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 2007
Three months later on December 9th, 2007, Univision hosted another forum where anchors, Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas, moderated the first U.S. Republican presidential debate in Spanish. Destino 2008was held againg at the University of Miami, in Coral Gables, Florida. In February of 2008, Jorge Ramos asked questions to U.S. presidential candidates at the CNN Democratic debateat the University of Texas at Austin, in Austin, Texas:
CNN, Univision and the Texas Democratic Party jointly hosted a debate between Obama and Clinton on February 21 at 7:00 CST on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin. The debate was rebroadcast at 10:30 in Spanish. Questions focused heavily on illegal immigration and the economy, among other issues.
Excerpt: Brian Lamb: Why did you become an American citizen and what year did you do it?
Jorge Ramos: I did it in 2008. For me it was very important to participate fully in this country. It’s truly a wonderful country and my fight is that this country would treat other immigrants like me the same way they treated the millions of immigrants who came after me. It’s truly amazing, who could have thought that when John F. Kennedy was writing his book “A Nation of Immigrants,” it was 1958, I was born exactly that year and with those wonderful ideas and of course he was killed in ’63, but in ’65 with the immigration act of 1965 everything changed and because of that, because John F. Kennedy and because of “A Nation of Immigrants” I’m in this country, so I wanted to participate fully. I was very concerned about the war, I was concerned about my kids. Paola who’s 23 right now and Nicolas who’s 12, they were born here in this country and I wanted to – I wanted to be fully part of the United States. This has been a wonderful, generous, and magnificent country for me and I wanted to be part of it.
It is not clear whether he became a citizen before or after he was allowed to ask questions of the U.S. presidential candidates at the CNN debate in February, 2008, as the views expressed above differ from his views in 2004where he mentions he is not a U.S. citizen, despite his long years here, “in case I wanttoreturn to Mexico to run for office.” [ The interview on CSPAN is long but worth a listen)
That means he was not a citizen in 2007 which raises a lot of questions. Is he sincere or just a hypocrite? It sure seems arrogant to point the finger at U.S. citizens who want their laws enforced, when he may have become a citizen for expediency. [And he has chutzpah to moderate debates if he’s not one!]
RECOGNITION AND AWARDS
Ramos has received the Maria Moors Cabot award from the University of Columbia, he won 8 Emmy awards for excellence in journalism (including the first ever presented by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences to honor leaders of Spanish Language Television). In 2002 he was honoredwith the ‘Ruben Salazar’ award by the National Council of La Raza for his positive portrayal of Latinos. In 2008 The Commonwealth Club of California recognized him with the Distinguished Citizen Award for being one of the outstanding individuals who embody the American Dream as an immigrant to the United States. Biography
He has said he can do what ever he damn well pleases (“lo que se me pegue la gana”) on his network, Univision. He’s like a pied piper for La Raza, and lord of a land within the land of plenty (ours) whose authority he defies and wants toppled. For that he is rewarded worldwide. Surprise. When questioning others he is sarcastic about the intentions of the undocumented’s: Do you (really) think we want to make the United States an extension of Mexico or claim it as part of our territory? That is Senor Ramos: America’s News Anchor. He’s not just a journalist. He takes his activism seriously. What’s not love if you’re a racist lib?
[That picture reminds me of Putin’s pictures on a horse.] In her commentary for TIME where he made the cover of 2015’s 100 Most Influential People, she writes:
Ramos wrangles with President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner; he swims the Rio Grande; he says he asks every question as if it’s his last, determined to get an answer or go down trying. What happened to immigration reform? He knows he has a voice and is not afraid to use it. He shouts from every rooftop that Hispanic rights are human rights.
After decades on the cutting edge of the news agenda, Jorge Ramos, who grew up in Mexico, is waging the campaign of a lifetime, which is also a defining issue for America, the country he calls home.
If you haven’t gotten sick yet (I am), there’s more. Yes Ramos is cocky and full of himself, but I would be dishonest intellectually to deny or not admire the passion he has for what he does. In his speech to an audience of leaders he calls rebels [I actually like that term], he toasts the Dreamers, which he calls his real heroes.
“Because Congress has done nothing for a decade, I salute them for taking matters into their own hands and changing American immigration policy.”
The most influential leader of 2015 warns: You do not want to be their enemy, because they will get in your face. They are really American citizens, but don’t have a paper to prove it. He makes a reminder and gives a stern word of caution to politicians and presidential candidates who are thinking of deporting anyone:
“Latinos will decide the next election and not vote for any candidate who wants to deport their father, their mother, your friends or your neighbors.”
When I say I like the word rebel, I mean it in a good way (for our cause). And when I say I “admire” his passion, I am really expressing it in the same spirit he pointed out that the Republican Party is doing something right because two Hispanics are running for president. What I really wish is for his ego and immigration views to blast him into oblivion. Maybe in the end he will be seen for what he is: an elitist out for his career like the rest of them! Ramos says he hopes to grow his clout beyond the Latino community with “Fusion“:
“What I really like is that for the first time, I don’t need translation,” he says. “And without translation, there’s an immediate impact. And definitely the language of power is English.” [How romantic sarc>].
2. Univision is the largest network aimed at Hispanics in the U.S. It has one of the largest audience of Spanish-language television viewers in the world, according to Nielsen Media Research. NBC’s Telemundo is second. Both have studios, operate and produce in Miami but headquarters are in New York. In recent years, the network has reached viewership parity with the U.S.’s five major English language television networks; it often places a strong fifth, outranking The CW, with some fourth-place weekly placings; as of 2012, even first place rankings for individual programs over all five English networks, attributed to telenovelas. Who knew? So I did a little search on Sunday talk shows and found that although ratings vary weekly ‘Al Punto’ came in 4th or 5th overall and was mentioned even when its ratings were unavailable. I also looked for ratings comparing all five networks for evening news (cable/non cable, English/Spanish) but only found each one promoting its best week or month.
No. 1 broadcast evening news program with twice as many viewers as the combined audience of “ABC World News Tonight,” “CBS Evening News” and “NBC Nightly News” among Adults 18-34 (195,000 vs. 86,000), Adults 18-49 (433,000 vs. 202,000) and Adults 25-54 (416,000 vs. 246,000). SOURCE Among Bilingual Hispanic Viewers: “Noticiero Univision” delivered 55% more Viewers 2+ than the combined audience of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening newscasts (930,000 vs. 601,000). Source: The Nielsen Company.
In Primetime for January 2012, FNC averaged 1,942,000 viewers, an increase of 78% since January 2002 when the network averaged 1,091,000. In fact, the Primetime ratings FNC achieved in 2002 after becoming number one eclipse what CNN and MSNBC are currently averaging today in 2012 (841,000 and 801,000 viewers respectively). Additionally, FNC’s current 2012-to-date Primetime average beat CNN and MSNBC combined. Fox News’s median age is 65+ but no figures reflect that age group. Viewers 25-54 have fallen but overall prime time audience went up to 2.02 in 2012 from 1.89 million in 2009. The O’Reilly Factor was the top show for Fox (and cable news as a whole), averaging 2.361M total viewers and 365K in the demo at 8 p.m. The Kelly File, which has been beating Bill O’Reilly’s show in the 9 p.m. slot on occasion, came in second overall, averaging 1.998M total viewers and 332K total. Read more here or here.
SUNDAY TALK SHOWS
In February 2012, Univision, its Sunday morning public affairs program:
“Al Punto” delivered two times more Adults 18-49 (186,000 vs. 91,000) than the combined audience of the English-language broadcast programs (ABC’s “This Week,” CBS’“Face The Nation,” NBC “Meet The Press” and “FOX News Sunday.”)
Rick Kissell Senior Editor of “Fox News Sunday” reported its telecast on July 28, 2014 in the DC market:
“Fox News Sundays” finished well ahead of NBC’s “Meet the Press” on WRC-4 (73,000), ABC’s “This Week” on WJLA-7 (65,000), CBS’ “Face the Nation” on WUSA-9 (59,000) and Univision’s “Al Punto” on WFDC-14 (57,000). It also led in households (64,000 to 53,000 for “Meet the Press”). In key news demo of adults 25-54, it led in D.C. with 41,000, followed by “This Week” (36,000), “Meet the Press” (33,000), “Al Punto” (32,000) and “Face the Nation” (29,000).
Nick Massella reported NBC’s Ratings in the DC Market in October , 2014 as follows:
“Meet” secured 65,000 total viewers followed by “FOX News Sunday” with 40,000 in the DC market. In terms of households, NBC also led with 55,000 followed by FOX with 34,000. In the A25-54 demo, FOX took first with 12,000 viewers followed by NBC with 9,000, CBS’s “Face the Nation” with 4,000, and ABC’s “This Week” considered a scratch. * FishbowlDC did not have access to ratings for Univision’s “Al Punto.”
“Face the Nation,” hosted by Bob Schieffer, the grandfatherly 77-year-old newsman, not only attracts the largest overall audience (a weekly average of 3.35 million during the first three months of 2014, 5 percent more than “This Week,” 8 percent more than “MTP” and 61 percent more than “Fox News Sunday”) but the largest audience among the coveted 25-to-54 set, too.
Collectively, about 9.6 million people watched the three networks each week during the first three months of this year, about the same number that watched Russert in 2005. This doesn’t count the audience for innumerable Sunday-morning competitors, from Fox News Sunday (hosted by former “Meet the Press” moderator Chris Wallace) to “Al Punto” on Univision. (2015 cable news ratings here)
EXACTLY.
Many politicians come to kiss Ramos’s hand (I had to steal that) on “Al Punto”. It is embarrassing to witness, which is why I translated this visit where Rep. Diaz-Balart is justifying our party’s actions to Ramos, revealing John Boehner’s intentions on amnesty. It is cordial but contentious as always (it gets old but he is tireless). He grills the Republican, slaps him around, throws in a racist accusation or two and dangles the 11 million-potential-voter-carrot they can’t ignore. Gutierrez, of course, does not get the same treatment. The clip is a gem, proving the GOPe does not want to answer to us. If Republicans want to really prove how compassionate they are, they would take a hard look at and explain how they can justify amnesty when our families and children will be hurt by it. Ramos said this about the next election and Republicans:
1) It is now accepted fact that Hispanic voters were integral to delivering Barack Obama’s presidency, and the road to D.C. has been permanently rerouted.
2) An immigration bill—which Ramos called “a prerequisite” for Latinos to even consider voting Republican—passed the Democratic Senate, but there is close to no hope in the Republican-controlled House, at least at present. “They don’t get it,” he says. Ramos’s theory is that the Republican nominee in 2016 will simply say of the do-nothing Congress, “They were wrong,” and then offer an immigration proposal of his own. May 5, 2014 New York Magazine.
What do we call it.. a threat? blackmail? ultimatum? shakedown or all of the above? There are so many appearances to choose from, but in every interview, Ramos must come across as the one who cares more than our side which is less passionate and caring about the plight of illegals. If you disagree with any of the points he makes, you have to defend not being anti-immigrant or anti-Hispanic. Marco Rubio’s views are far from being anti-immigrant. (We hate them!) He has made it clear that immigration reform is inevitable, that he is against deportations and will not disrupt DACA (only legislation that is okay before securing the border according to Conant his adviser) but that’s not enough for the true extremists. Cruz is for a bipartisan solution to Immigration reform, which leaves me feeling a little queasy. Does he mean DC-type bipartisanship or a unanimous decision and consensus where D’s and R’s are representing the American people. In any case it is all futile effort because Ramos doesn’t care about them, the law or the fact that the GOPe is shortchanging us on immigration. He does extract their true colors, though, in the process.
Dear Jorge (hor-hey),
Rubio is for Amnesty, DACA and Dreamers!
We hate that as much as you resent it. Why don’t you support him?
Bilingual and legal
Ingraham knows why they flock to Ramos: to try to make inroads into the Hispanic vote, but asks what the difference between him and Graham is. [Why don’t you ask Jorge, Laura?!]
We have two Hispanics running for president because they ran on a strong message which generated grassroots excitement, and which translated into votes. One lied about it, the other a little more trustworthy but it remains to be seen. Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with these presidential hopefuls should have nothing to do with their ethnicity, but character. The truth is, Ramos wishes the hero of this episode in history was a Hispanic Democrat, not a Hispanic Republican, and a Mexican, not a Cuban-American. At the end of this clip he pleads with Bill Richardson to run in 2016. Below is an example of this bias. It is short, in Spanish with English subtitles:
GOTCHA!
Ramos reminds Rubio above that millions of “Hispanics” want change (referring to millions of Mexican illegals, of course). Like all advocates for amnesty, (see Linda Vega) ‘undocumented’ is key. Rubio’s reply reflects what many in the community I live in believe: that immigration is a touchy, sensitive matter, a humanitarian, not political issue. (The same is probably true in other states where you don’t want to offend people you already know.) No matter what he says, though, he will be the bad guy. Univision will never cover Benghazi, Obama’s scandals or news that is not relevant to “Hispanics” (one particular sector..) Its bias (subtle or not) affects millions of bilinguals (55% prefer Noticiero Unvision to our new show), and what happens at home here and with neighbors is microcosmic of what happened before fair and balanced came around, or social media now. There are no competitors to challenge or enlighten viewers on other points of view. Certainly politicians can’t do so in just one sitting.
Rubio’s answer was cut off in the sub-titled clip, so I’m providing what was said in the full interview in Spanish to illustrate Ramos’s disdain for Rubio:
1 Family is not off the table. When Rubio was 16 his brother-in-law was sentenced to 25 years for drug trafficking (He was released in 2000 for good behavior). Rubio explains in his book American Son that it was a very difficult time for the family and scolds Ramos and Univision for making it the story front and center on the news when it had nothing to with him. It was just to smear Rubio. Ramos (playing dumb) insisted if he was going to run as VP in 2012 this information should be known. Rubio says they could have called him, not his sister, and that it was public record anyway; he called it a black eye for the network, but Ramos doesn’t stop there. He asks Rubio if he got money from his brother-in-law or was influenced in any way by him during his campaign. In no way, Rubio replied.
2 Ramos objects to ENGLISH as the official language of this country.If you speak it at home, he says, why should it be official? He says millions of voters could be affected by the police stopping or discriminating against anyone with an accent in Spanish. There are other negative consequences, he says, like being fired from jobs for speaking Spanish. It is discriminatory. Rubio: No one gets stopped for having an accent. In Florida English is the official language. It doesn’t stop you from speaking Spanish at home.
3 You’re Anti-Immigrant for not agreeing with me 100%. Ramos points to books on Rubio’s bookcase: He says Bush, Reagan, even McCain, a presidential candidate, were all for the legalization of illegals. Why aren’t you like them?Rubio: I am my own person and I base my views on what is happening in the country today. Ramos: People approach me saying he [Rubio] “does not defend us”. He says they want to see Rubio come out and defend them, the undocumented. Rubio: That’s not true. I defend.. Ramos: You could be president one day and change that. Rubio: Unfortunately, a lot of people make promises knowing they cannot keep. I say what I see can be done. Ramos: President Obama’s campaign manager told Univision it would be an insult to the Hispanic immigrant community if you [Republicans] had won the election in 2012 because your position is anti-Hispanic. Mitt Romney, for example, was for self-deportation. Rubio: Self-deportation means they made a decision to go back as a consequence of things getting difficult in Obama’s economy. I don’t know of anyone having positions that are ant-immigrant or anti-Hispanic. RAMOS: The perception is, you could be. RUBIO: Many on the left would say that. RAMOS: You could be powerful as the first Hispanic President of the U.S. or most powerful Hispanic, but your positions are 1) You are for the Arizona Law which persecutes immigrants, 2) you are against the Dream Act, and 3) you want English to be the official language. RUBIO: 1) The Arizona law is not meant for the entire nation but I support it because states have rights which I respect. 2) I do want to help the undocumented kids here and 3) English should be the official language like it is in Florida.
If you think I’m defending Rubio you’ve missed the point of this entire article.
Rubio has deserved all he got because of 2013. Like millions, I was angry he betrayed good Tea Party conservatives who voted for him thinking he was in their corner. He should have known better than to mess with immigration extremists, too. If there was any lesson to be learned, it is to speak clearly. I will never forget or condone his actions; however, SarahPac has urged us to support Cruz, Paul and Rubio from attacks from the left. She is right. And Ramos and Univision are part of those attacks.
RAMOS CALLS TED CRUZ AND HIS DAD DREAMERS
First, if Ramos had a one-year certificate to be in the United States because of Mexican censorship. His permit to work here must have had an expiration date. I don’t really care at this point if he overstayed a visa or not. Let’s assume he did every legally. It just makes me wonder why someone would be so adamantly AGAINST immigration law enforcement if he wasn’t illegal himself.
As a Cuban-American, I can say Ramos and those who lead “the” march to illegality resent our legality. He can’t help it. Ramos points out to Rubio that his grandfather and to Ted Cruz that his father were just like dreamers, simply asking for documentation. In Rubio’s case, it could not be compared because there was no law that existed that his grandfather was breaking in the first place. And Ted Cruz fends off the attack by explicitly saying his father was legal. Ramos ignores both explanations.
Even though he grilled Obama a while ago for not keeping his promise, Ramos says in this interview with pinhead OReilly: that Obama “evolved” on the legality of immigration action. Puleez. Obama said repeatedly he didn’t have the legal power to pass it, but Ramos and other activists are joyful that it was, and are emboldened by the move. They are trying not to sound ungrateful, but can’t hold back as this is just the start. They want all illegals here from every country amnestied, not just theirs. It will never end. By the way, Ramos says in English at the 3:33 (it’s such a bad habit!) that he is an immigrant.
I am being long-winded about this, but I am passionate about the subject. I recommend the tape below which illustrates what arguments we can use against amnesty. It is not by a politician but an anti-amnesty activist with no strings attached. He reminds me of Heather MacDonald: polite, smart and reasonable.In English:
So why should we care about what Ramos thinks? Most Americans are against it! Because…
Ramos may turn out to be one of the most influential journalists going into the 2016 presidential election.
“The GOP needs Univision more than Univision needs the GOP,”
“For a party looking to be competitive nationally again, they can’t risk alienating the premier outlet that caters to the fastest-growing part of the electorate.”
“There is a very simple political reality—Hispanics will decide the 2016 Presidential election. No one can match Univision’s reach and ability to inform, provide access and empower Hispanic America. Anyone who wants to reach and engage Hispanics will have to do it through Univision..
Univision lead anchor Jorge Ramos said that both parties:
“have to make sure that their debates don’t look like the 2015 Oscar nominations,” referring to the lack of diversity among the Academy’s nominees.
THE DEBATES
RNC’s scheduleis not much more encouragingas none of the anchors representing the networks are RAMOS in the reverse.
Our news outlets are at fault for not doing their job where amnesty is concerned. Millions complain about it, but none in power have had the will, drive or support to do anything about it consistently. Sarah Palin called for impeachment last year, but it fell on deaf ears across DC. It would be great if we had a powerful news anchor 24/7 defending America’s sovereignty like our nemesis on Univision does to violate it. What a dream to hear candidates answer to us accepting five non-negotiable’s in this war against amnesty:
Yes, English is our official language.
A pathway to citizenship really means amnesty.
I will not support Obama’s executive actions, DACA or DAPA.
Illegals are not ‘undocumented’ and dreamers are not the same as legal immigrants seeking documentation.
We will spend time debating deportation for lawbreakers for not just criminals, instead of how to make citizenship happen.
Americans have the right to secure their border first, and not be accused of being anti-immigrant or anti-Hispanic because of it.
Democrats are better at this, so we have to fight together to beat them on this and appeal to legal citizens and American voters affected by it.
Ingraham’s stance on amnesty has been effective in some races. She could be a good anchor, but her negatives would be she is unreliable politically: 1) she said she wasn’t going to get into presidential politics only state and local, but within 24 hours she was commenting on the national race, and 2) she is too quick and eager to back establishment candidates when push comes to shove. Chris McDaniel could be thrown into the mix just to spook the Rinos. Stuart Varney also came to mind (but I’m not sure what his stance on immigration is). We should start thinking about this and demand that the RNC providing moderators who will ask and demand clear answers, putting Priebus, our quasi-conservative media and any GOPe on notice that anyone who is for amnesty but wants to appear as they are not must take a hike!
Sarah Palin electrified millions when she dismissed Washington reporters as elitists in her VP acceptance speech, something we had never heard anyone say in politics. It was just one of the many moments that were part of that electrifying night. Who can forget those 25 seconds (:45 – 1:11)? (Schieffer’s reaction was priceless):
One month later Palin made the point to talk directly to the American without the filter of the media. We loved it. And still do!
Eight years later she is still talking to not at us, like the nation’s CEO, almost daily on her own online channel. Just today she addressed illegal immigration (again):
My advice to candidates:
TALK TO US DIRECTLY!
We cannot have a flippant attitude about immigration. It has to be done with a sense of urgency which the above presidential hopeful has. We cannot accept candidates wanting or trying to be the Candy Man to pushy Dreamers and/or innocent children who’ve been brainwashed from day one that it’s okay to break the law. Laws are our contract between government and its people and in their quest for power,
our lawmakers have become lawbreakers in helping push this agenda.
Ramos may be one of the Most Influential Latino Leaders in the world, but he is helping millions break our laws. You will get no apology from me for being for deportations, defending English as our official language, or militarizing the border. He says he never mentions his views on the evening news but Ramos gives his opinion everywhere else. When he asks if Mexicans would vote for a candidate just because they spoke Spanish, it is a legitimate question. If we had a black Republican candidate, would blacks turn out the vote for him? Not necessarily. In that regard Rubio and Cruz are wise not to run as Hispanics but on message, and that is what we vet them on, but I’m still calling Ramos out on his arrogance, racism and b.s. (making such a fuss over ethnicity) and sending this clear note to our own:
Dear Republican candidates,
We are the ones you should worry about. If you pander for illegal votes, you will lose our trust and our vote.
Your Constituents
No matter what intentions you as Republicans may have, or what your plans to reform immigration are, the majority of Latinos and/or Hispanics (camouflage for Mexican) do not and never really will sympathize with Republicans (like Ramos suggests). So why waste time on the 11 million illegal ‘birds in the bush’, when we have about 40 million legals in the hand willing to sacrifice for and abide by this country’s laws. We should be attracting Hispanics for the right reasons, not background.
The left knows no bounds on personal attacks, respect for laws or life, so it is up to us to continue pushing backing and to build an apparatus that will challenge the invasion (yes, it is an invasion and no, we’re not racists for saying so.) Tenacity and drive are key. We can start by reacting with caution to stories coming from this Spanish media because it is just like our liberal media. We have to act like Team R (relentless) vs. Team D (derelicts), regardless of party affiliation. For our sovereignty.
It remains to be seen whether Republicans will win in 2016 by courting the illegal vote. It did not help Reagan (or Americans) for him to pass amnesty in the long run. Democrats ended up not securing the border like they had promised in exchange for the 3 million amnestied. That’s what you get when you deal with Democrats.
Is Rubio a racist? No.
Is he godless? No.
Has he always wanted to pass immigration reform? Yes.
Is it a screwed up political agenda? Yes.
Is Jorge Ramos all of the above? Yes.
But immigration reform is no inevitable. We just have to fight relentlessly against it. Ramos is not just a journalist and he is not just a liberal. He represents the sleeping giant that is the future of American politics. That future is NOW.
And the power is OURS to relinquish.
###
Basta! Enough. It is time for our version of who should be America’s Most Influential Leader 2016:
If none of the above has convinced you that presidential contenders should avoid Univision like the plague, maybe this will:
The billionaire Univision owner whose company is promoting Hillary Clinton on Spanish-language media platforms is a Clinton friend who said that seeing Clinton in the White House is his “big dream” and that “Hillary is Obama’s natural successor.”
The partnership raises serious questions about the role independent media networks can play in preparing Clinton for a presidential run.
“Too Small to Fail,” a joint initiative of the childhood development research group Next Generation and the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, launched in June 2013 with the stated aim of promoting research about brain development, nutrition, and health for children aged 0 to 5. Now the project, and its spokesperson Hillary Clinton, will get a lot of face time on the largest Spanish language media network in the United States. http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/17/days-after-univision-announces-clinton-partnership-network-owner-says-hillary-presidency-his-dream/
Yesterday was “Earth Day” and [not coincidentally] Communist terror leader Vladimir Lenin’s birthday. We spent the day talking about the scam of “global warming” and quoting actual conservationists and climate experts, who debunk the notion and rightly understand the “climate change” movement has more to with their hero, birthday boy Lenin, and his insane philosophy, than actual science.
There was another birthday this week. A one we are more than happy to celebrate: Trig Palin’s! [4/21] Governor Palin took to Facebook to post some photos of her son enjoying the day [and the fresh snow!] as well as to blast the fascist thugs who are pushing the global warming scam:
Celebrating the boys’ birthdays – in new snow on 4/20! Trig takes another lap on his restored ’88 Élan (thank you, Garret and Ellie!) while enjoying this “climate change” (also known as “seasons“).
100% Human-Caused Global Warming? What a racket. A money-making, politically-driven tool that ignores history to enable control freaks’ mandates that fundamentally transform your lifestyle and stall American progress.
Well, happy birthday, sons; may you and your generation never cave to Al Gore and his liberal idiotic ilk as elitists pretend to play God, claiming they control Mother Nature. They can’t predict this afternoon’s weather but foolishly demand trust in their supernatural power to predict it 5000 years from now. Stay strong, boys! We need men like you to un-do what’s been done to our country under liberal control. Meanwhile, enjoy the snow!
Imagine that, the head of the all powerful, heavy handed agency that is attempting to control your every minute action in the name of stopping “climate change” can’t even answer the most basic questions about the environment. Questions that anyone [my age] who made it past grade school could answer!
Climate Change: Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, can’t answer basic questions about global temperatures, climate models or numbers of hurricanes. She didn’t know being a global warming zealot requires knowledge of math.
If the science of climate change was “settled,” you’d think one of the generals in the war on global warming would have memorized the numbers that point to our planetary doom from a menace the administration says is a greater threat than terrorism.
But McCarthy was asked some pretty simple questions Wednesday at a Senate hearing Wednesday on her request for $8.6 billion to help fight the claimed imminent doom of climate change, and her performance didn’t help her case.
One of the questions involved droughts and the claim that their frequency has increased due to warming that is said to be caused by mankind’s increased production of greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, the basis for all life on Earth but judged by the EPA to be a pollutant.
“Let me ask you this,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., inquired of McCarthy. “There was an article from Mr. (Bjorn) Lomborg … from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. (Roger) Pielke from Colorado, that we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?”
The seemingly clueless McCarthy pathetically responded that she didn’t “know in what context he’s making statements like that.” Context? Truth has its own context, and the inconvenient truth that McCarthy wasn’t aware of, or didn’t want to face, is that Pielke and Lomborg are right.
Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado, told the Senate environment and public works subcommittee in July 2013 that droughts have “for the most part become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century.” Globally, he said, “there has been little change in drought over the last 60 years.”
Sessions also asked McCarthy if we’ve had more or fewer hurricanes in the last decade. It was another question she said she couldn’t answer because “it’s a very complicated issue.” Well, no, not unless basic math is a complicated issue. Sessions noted that we have in fact gone nearly a decade without a Category 3 storm or higher making landfall in the U.S.
The last hurricane to hit America as a Category 3 or higher was Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. Superstorm Sandy had wind speeds barely reaching Category 1 status when it slammed into New Jersey in 2012 and wreaked havoc.
Sessions inquired of the global temperatures that have virtually flatlined for two decades:
“Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years, that the increase in temperatures has been very little, matter of fact 90% below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?”
McCarthy replied that she didn’t know “what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to.”
Sessions called her ignorance and inability to outline the danger we supposedly face from climate change, as well as her failure to justify the EPA’s funding request, a “stunning development.” So do we.
The science is indeed settled, but not the way climate zealots think. McCarthy’s lack of knowledge and facts on her side only underscores the fact we have wasted billions on fighting a nonexistent threat and shackled our economy with lower growth and higher job loss.
Ignorance and stupidity is the hallmark of liberalism, the democrat party, and the corrupt and evil Obama regime. It should come as no surprise that, like every other member of Obama’s vile, Anti-American, anti-human regime, Gina McCarthy is criminally incompetent and ignorant!
These people belong in prison for all of the pain and suffering they have cause the human race.
>The United States is needlessly penalizing itself and squandering its resource endowment, all because of the big lie that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. The Chinese, in contrast, merely pay lip service to that big lie. The only reason they are making a token effort on the “global warming” front is to encourage Western countries to continue hobbling their own economies. One can be forgiven for thinking that there must be some truth in the global warming notion given how much noise its advocates have made. But as with most causes promoted by leftist ideologues, the truth is exactly the opposite to their claim. The fact of the matter is the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere remains dangerously low at four hundred parts per million. In fact the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the better for all forms of life on planet Earth.
Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at 286 parts per million. Let us round this number to 300 parts per million to make the sums easier. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases ensure that the planet is 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be if they were not in the atmosphere, so the average temperature of the planet’s surface is 15°C instead of -15°C. Water vapor is responsible for 80 percent of that effect, and carbon dioxide for only 10 percent, with methane, ozone, and so forth accounting for the remainder. So the approximately 300 parts per million of carbon dioxide is good for 3°C degrees of warming. If the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature were arithmetic—in other words, a straight linear relationship—then adding another 100 parts per million of carbon dioxide would result in one degree of warming. We are adding 2 parts per million to the atmosphere annually, or 100 parts per million every fifty years. At that rate, humanity would fry.
Thankfully, the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature is logarithmic, not arithmetic. The first 20 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provides 1.6°C of warming, after which the effect drops away rapidly. From the current level of 400 parts per million, each addition of 100 parts per million adds only 0.1°C of warming. By the time we have dug up all the rocks we can economically burn, and burned them, we may reach 600 parts per million in the atmosphere. So perhaps we might add another 0.2°C of warming over the next two centuries. That warming will be lost in the noise of natural climate variation. So much for the problem of global warming! As a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is tuckered out. On the positive side of the ledger, it is very beneficial as aerial fertilizer. The carbon dioxide that mankind has put into the atmosphere to date has in fact boosted crop yields by 15 percent. This is like giving the Third World countries free phosphate fertilizer. Who could possibly be so heartless as to deny under- developed countries that benefit, at no cost to anyone?
The real threat is dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Earth has been in a glacial period for the last 3 million years, including some sixty separate glacial advances and retreats. The current Holocene interglacial period might last up to another 3,000 years before the Earth plunges into another glaciation. Carbon dioxide is a gas highly soluble in water, and its solubility is highly temperature dependent. The colder the planet is, the more carbon dioxide the oceans absorb. During glaciations the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has fallen to as low at 180 parts per million. It needs to be stressed that plant life shuts down at 150 parts per million, as plants are unable to operate with the partial pressure differential of carbon dioxide between their cells and the atmosphere. Several times during the last 3 million years, life above sea level was within 30 parts per million of being extinguished by a lack of carbon dioxide. The flowering plants we rely upon in our diet evolved 100 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level was four times the current concentration. For plant life, the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is near starvation levels
And unfortunately, the carbon dioxide that human beings are pumping into the atmosphere will not be there for very long. There is fifty times as much carbon dioxide held by the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. As the deep oceans turn over, on an eight-hundred-year cycle of circulation, they will take the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere down into Davy Jones’s Locker, where it will be of no use to man, beast, or plant life. Agricultural productivity will rise for the next two centuries or so, along with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, after which it will fall away. By the year 3000 AD, the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide level will be only a couple of percent higher than before the Industrial Revolution. Life above sea level will therefore remain dangerously pre- carious because of the low carbon dioxide level.
“Global warming” is an irrational belief whose proponents demonstrate no interest in examining scientific evidence that may prove their beliefs incorrect.As a simple cult, it has failed to progress much beyond the concept of original sin, apocalyptic visions, sumptuary laws, and the selling of indulgences. Wind farms are the temples of this state-sponsored belief system. This cult doesn’t extend to building aged-care homes, hospitals, or anything much for the common good. Instead it degrades the fabric of society by misdirecting human effort. Its true believers can hardly be blamed; the global warming cult is not much different from any of the other end-of-the-world cults that have preceded it. Society’s opprobrium should be saved for the gatekeepers who have failed in their duty to protect the public from the depredations of the global warming rent-seekers and charlatans. The boards and executive staffs of a number of learned societies across the Western world have embraced this cult against the wishes of the majority of their members…
The fact that the world has not warmed since 1998 (in defiance of the global warming scare) hasn’t dented cult members’ faith. Arguing scientific evidence with them is pointless. It will take something far worse than a return of the frigid winters of the 1970s to create doubt in their minds. That something worse is coming. Millions of people may have to endure many harsh years before this pernicious cult is vanquished. And until the global warming myth is exploded, the security of the United States—and thus of the world—is also at risk.
David Archibald is a climate expert and a fellow at the Institute of World Politics.
We all know that the 1930’s were the hottest decade since records of temps have been kept. We also know the government has been lying, claiming that we are in a period of warming.
Well, in 2014 a prominent meteorologist and climate blogger, Anthony Watts, exposed the NOAA, after the agency quietly reinstated July, 1936 as the hottest month on record, after only days earlier they were claiming, with much fanfare, that July 2012 was the hottest month on record.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.
According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”
“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.
This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.
“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”
Watts had data from NOAA’s “Climate at a Glance” plots from 2012, which shows that July 2012 was the hottest month on record at 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit. July 1936 is only at 77.4 degrees Fahrenheit. [Annotations in the graph are from Watts].
Watts ran the same data plot again on Sunday and found that NOAA inserted a new number in for July 1936. The average temperature for July 1936 was made slightly higher than July 2012, meaning, once again, July 1936 is the hottest year on record. [Annotations in the graph are from Watts]
“You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately.”
“In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why,” Watts continued. “This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.”
In a recent paper written for the Heartland Institute Greenpeace founder and conservationist Dr. Patrick Moore explains in great detail why he is, what the radical left wing extremists call, a “skeptic” on so-called “global warming.”
Dr Moore tells the reader that, despite the hysterical rantings of lunatics and con artists, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Far from it! In fact, as anyone who paid attention in elementary school science class knows, carbon dioxide is an essential element for all life on earth.
Dr Moore also notes that carbon dioxide levels are actually at precariously low levels, to the point of danger. Something we will talk about more in a later post today.
Dr Moore, an actual scientist, tells us that we should celebrate carbon dioxide, not fear it. It is an essential; element for all life on earth.
I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.
IPCC Conflict of Interest
By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.
Political Powerhouse
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.
Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
Human Emissions Saved Planet
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.
On this Earth Day 2015 while the lunatics, environmental extremists, and Fascists hellbent on world domination [and absolute control of every facet of your miserable life] scream at the top of their lungs about the “evils” of carbon dioxide, please remember, that without this precious and vital element, without Co2, you … and everything else on Planet Earth, would die a horrific death.
The Communists, Socialist, and the Fascists who make up the democrat party, have an agenda and it is an agenda that is not compatible with civilized society.
Celebrate carbon dioxide and enjoy life today, and every day!
Ah, “Earth Day” the annual event where Communists, Socialists, Fascists, “progressives,” “liberals,” democrats and other greedy, power hungry bastards, who dream of having absolute power over the human race [for fun and profit] team up with their billionaire political cronies and other con artists looking to make a quick buck, using junk science [and outright bullshit] to scare the living Hell out of people who haven’t even the most rudimentary understanding of actual science and how the world really works. Naive people who will fall for anything the corrupt lamestream media tells them, despite over 100 years worth of empirical evidence [and, you know, plain old common sense] to the contrary!
We’ve been hearing predictions of gloom and doom for the past 45 years, and absolutely NONE of them have come to pass, and yet, ignorant people lose their shit every time someone claims this or that is due to “global warming” or the new word “climate change“!
While extremists and bullshit artists today scream about global warming, and Al Gore tells us the earth “has a fever” [even though the hottest decade on record was the 1930s] back in the 1970’s, it was the coming ICE AGE, that these lunatics were using to scare otherwise normal people to death!
Starting in 1972 and all through the 70’s, Time Magazine ran articles warning of a coming Ice Age , complete with dire warnings of mass starvation, world wars [over dwindling food resources, of course] and within a decade or so, complete and total extinction of all living things: plant, animal, and human, on earth!
While today the oceans warming is a sure sign of global warming, the same condition was said to signal a coming Ice Age in the 1970’s. You simply can’t make this of weapons grade insanity up!
How insane did it all get? The Central “Intelligence” Agency [the CIA, yes THAT CIA] claimed that record flooding and other extreme weather that portions of the world was experiencing in the early 1970’s was due to “global cooling” which is hilarious, when you consider today’s extremists claim any and all bad weather, including flooding, is caused by “global warming“!
Of course, all of this was complete and total nonsense, and nothing but junk science, but the media, in cahoots with the liberal fascists, Socialists, Communists, democrats, and other filthy rat bastards seeking world domination, power, and riche$ played it up to the hilt in order to scare people into submission. Thankfully, this was before President Jimmy Carter federalized our education system, and children were still taught ACTUAL science. It was also, thankfully, before the internet. As a result, few people bought into the hysteria. People used to have a fair amount of common sense built into their DNA!
Both Steve Goddard and David Middleton covered the nonsense, fear-mongering, and wildly insane predictions from Time in greater detail here and here.
A few decades later, Time would use cute and cuddly polar bears to scare the living crap out of stupid people who believe anything they read in Time!
Here’s some facts about the polar bear the extremists hope you never find out. For one thing, these cuddly little bears are actually ENORMOUS and quite VICIOUS. They have absolute ZERO natural enemies. Nothing out in the animal kingdom hunts them. The polar bears do the hunting!
Polar bears can also swim incredible distances.
According to a study conducted by the United States Geological Survey [USGS] between 2004 and 2009, polar bears are capable of swimming as far as 220 miles in one day, while the average distance a bear covers in a day is 96 miles.
Polar bears are capable of swimming vast distances, a potential survival skill needed in an Arctic environment where summer sea ice is vanishing, a study led by the U.S. Geological Survey showed on Tuesday.
The study, published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology, tracked 52 female polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska. Between 2004 and 2009, a period of extreme summer-ice retreat, about a third of those bears made swims exceeding 30 miles in distance, according to the study results.
The 50 recorded ultra-marathon swims averaged 96 miles, and one bear was able to swim nearly 220 miles, according to the study results. The duration of the long-distance swims lasted from most of a day to nearly 10 days, according to the study.
The bears’ movements were tracked using global positioning system collars. All the animals in the study were females because male polar bear necks are too thick for GPS-equipped collars, said Karen Oakley, a supervising biologist at the USGS Alaska Science Center.
Many of the polar bears in the study had young cubs with them, and it appears that at least some of the cubs – which were not collared – might have been able to keep up with their mothers in the water, USGS officials said.
The scientists were able to track 10 of the studied bears within a year of collaring and found that six still had their cubs, the lead scientist said in a statement released by the USGS.
“These observations suggest that some cubs are also capable of swimming long distances. For the other four females with cubs, we don’t know if they lost their cubs before, during, or at some point after their long swims,” Anthony Pagano, a USGS scientist and lead author of the study, said in the statement.
It should be noted that the “period of extreme summer-ice retreat” is normal and happens every summer in the Arctic and has nothing to do with “climate change“!
The extremists LOVE to show a picture of a polar bear floating on ice, presumably stranded by global warming, and the fact there is no more ice in the Arctic. NOW you know that if a bear is floating on a piece of ice, she is simply taking a break! There is plenty of ice in the frozen north, and that bear is just fine!
Now on to “Earth Day” 1970
We’ve used several sources, including Jon Gabriel and IHateTheMedia to compile a list of predictions the environmental extremists and political fascists [but I repeat myself] predicted. You’ll find my comments in […] and bold after many of them!
** “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
** “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
[ It’s 45 years later and we are still going strong!]
** “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
[The earth is more habitable now than at any time in history. Yea technology!]
** “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
This is actually TRUE! However, ignorant people confuse pollution and the general disregard for our environment, an actual issue in 1970, and the outright HOAX that is now being perpetrated by extremists, fascists, and billionaires looking to make even more money off the biggest scam in human history.
As a child I first heard the word “ecology” around 1969 or 1970, in school. There were serious problems with actual pollution in the United States as well as the rest of the world. Raw sewage and industrial chemicals were routinely dumped in rivers, lakes, and streams. It wasn’t uncommon to see people throw trash out their car windows while driving down the road!
There was a massive campaign to not only stop the dangerous practices of chemical dumping, and littering, but to clean up the damage already done. In some places we are still working on the cleanup, but America is much cleaner. Nothing is perfect, but people were made more aware and bad habits were changed. That’s a very good thing!]
** “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
** “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
[Ehrlich is the author of “The Population Bomb a book that predicted a population explosion that would end the world. He, along with Al Gore, Ted Turner and other extremist nut jobs have declared we should reduced the entire world’s population to roughly 100 million, in order to “save” the planet. There are roughly 320 million people living in the United States alone. Depending on which agency you believe, there are between 7 and 7.5 BILLION people on earth today!
Technology has allowed the development of greater sources of food from smaller plots of land. One of the biggest developments came well before Ehrlich’s wild eyed prediction. In the early 1960’s a man named Norman Borlaug created a genetically modified [GMO] strain of wheat, called Dwarf Wheat. In most of the less developed world, normal wheat would grow tall, and since there was a lack of machinery to harvest it in a timely manner, rot in the fields, as the wheat stalks simply bent over and lay on the ground. Dwarf Wheat stands erect, and allows for the manual harvesting of the crop, and gives field workers more time to do it.
It is said that, and Borlaug is credited with, saving ONE BILLION lives with his amazing creation! Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize [back when that thing meant something] as well as the Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to name a few honors. This is one of the greatest advancements in history and everyone should read up on Borlaug and his Dwarf Wheat]
*** FUN FACT: Though extremists claim the earth is “out of room” for it’s population, the entire world’s population could fit in a land mass the size of Texas!
** “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
[The only people starving in the United States are the poor school kids who are forced to eat the lunches Michelle Obama thinks they should! -Search online for photos of these “fine dining” options the First Lady has provided!
So-called “scientists” tell us that obesity, or TOO MUCH FOOD is one of the greatest crisis mankind is facing these days!]
** “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
[Yeah, didn’t happen!]
** “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
[in reality, according to multiply government studies, the quality of air in the United States has never been better! NOW the extremists claim we are getting TOO MUCH sun!!!! That said, places like China, which has fewer standards and overcrowded cities, are still facing air quality issues. This is an issue of poor standards not “climate change.”]
** “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
[See above]
** “We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
[Total bullshit! We are still finding new resources for energy]
** “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
While total world resources of oil shale are conservatively estimated at 2.6 trillion barrels, The United States sits on TWO TRILLION barrels of that crude. More than all of the crude that was ever produced worldwide since the petroleum age began.
[In the article I also noted there was a recent find of 1.67 QUADRILLION (1670 TRILLION) cubic feet of natural gas in the Arctic and …. :
Another staggering number is found in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. There is said to be 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, or 6 times what is held in all of Saudi Arabia.
There is so much oil in the Bakken Shale deposits in North Dakota, private investors are looking to build a $1.8 billion pipeline from North Dakota to Oklahoma. A hefty investment and a huge jobs program at a time we need a huge jobs program.
[Add in roughly 250 years worth of coal deposits, and the United States has enough oil and natural gas to be 100% energy independent for the next 500 to 800 years, depending on consumption rates.]
** “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
[So ridiculous that it’s hard to know what to say, EXCEPT that scientists are still discovering hundreds of new species on land and in the world’s oceans every single year! (Look it up) The earth is as vibrant and alive as anytime in recorded history!]
** “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
[Now these loons tell us the world is about to spontaneously combust from all the heat!]
** “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek Magazine
[Again, these same crackpots and scam artists are NOW telling us that all of these things that were supposed to create a new and civilization destroying Ice Age, are now causing global warming! (or as they now call it “climate change” so as to cover ANY imaginary calamity]
You will be bombarded with absolute hysteria and bullshit today. You will be told the world will end in just a few short years if you don’t turn over complete control of you life, as well as your wallet, to these extremists. Don’t fall for it.
Whew! The beginning of this interview caused quite a stir this weekend. It sounds like a slight error but knowing Univision and its history with Rubio (see next article), it was right to have it clarified. Rubio was reported to have said that the president’s DACA was important, but the translation used from media service Grabien in the original Breitbart News article read: “I believe DACA is important. It can’t be terminated from one moment to the next, because there are already people benefiting from it.” The source that came forward from Rubio’s camp said even Univision’s translation was a little imprecise, and that Rubio’s word-for-word translation should have been “But DACA, I think it’s important not to cancel it from one moment to the next because you already have people benefiting from it.” The transcript below is the one from Univision which I corrected in bold. The tape with imprecise subtitles is on their site.
Program: Al Punto with Jorge Ramos
Content: Interview with Senator Marco Rubio
Air Date: Sunday, April 19, 2015
JR: Senator Marco Rubio, thank you for speaking with us.
SMR: Thank you very much, Jorge.
JR: Senator, in your book you talk about how excited you were by Barack Obama’s campaign. Nonetheless, Barack Obama did not run as an African-American candidate. You have decided not to run as a Hispanic candidate. Why?
SMR:
Well, obviously I’m Hispanic. My heritage, that of my parents, both of them were from Cuba, and obviously, I was raised in a Hispanic community. I think that my message and our policies are policies that apply to every American. There’s no doubt that the Hispanic community is a community of hardworking people, people who are seeking to improve their lives. I do think that our message has a special impact on that community because many of them identify with that story. But I obviously think that it’s a message that applies to everyone and that a president has to work for everyone.
JR: As you know, it has always been hard for Republicans to get the Hispanic vote. I wanted to talk with you about very concrete issues that affect Hispanics directly. I would like to start with the issue of deferred action and DACA. If you made it to the White House, would you keep the DACA program; that is, Deferred Action for the Dreamers, and would you keep President Barack Obama’s executive action, which would benefit more than four million undocumented people?
SMR:
Well, DACA is going to have to end at some point. I wouldn’t undo it immediately. The reason is that there are already people who have that permission, who are working, who are studying, and I don’t think it would be fair to cancel it suddenly.
But I do think it is going to have to end. And, God willing, it’s going to end because immigration reform is going to pass. DAPA hasn’t yet taken effect, and I think it has impeded progress on immigration, on immigration reform. And since that program hasn’t taken effect yet, I would cancel it.
But DACA, I think it is important; it can’t be cancelled suddenly because there are already people who are benefiting from it. [This should read: “But DACA, I think it’s important not to cancel it from one moment to the next because you already have people benefiting from it.”;
But it is going to have to end. It cannot be the permanent policy of the United States. And I don’t think that’s what they’re asking for, either. I think that everyone prefers immigration reform.
JR: But then, to clarify, you would end DACA once immigration reform is approved. But what happens, Senator, if there is no immigration reform? Would you cancel DACA anyway?
SMR:
At some point it’s going to have to end. That is, it cannot continue to be the permanent policy of the United States. I do think that if I wind up being president, it will be possible to achieve new immigration reform. It won’t be possible for it to be comprehensive; that is, they are not going to be able to do everything in one massive bill. We already tried that a couple of years ago. We have seen that the political support isn’t there, and I think we’ve spent a lot of time on this process when we could have started moving forward through the three steps that I advocated. Unfortunately, a lot of time has been wasted on that. It has become an even more controversial issue; harder to move forward on that issue. But I still say that it’s important to modernize our system, and that means improving the way we enforce it in the future, to modernize the immigration system so that it’s not so costly and bureaucratic. And we have to deal with 12 million human beings who are already here. And nobody, nobody is advocating a plan to deport12 million human beings. So that issue has to be dealt with, as well.
JR: When you announced your candidacy, outside of the building where you announced it, there were a lot of Dreamers, protesting. And then there are some immigrant organizations that have criticized your candidacy. America’s Voice says that you have anti-immigrant positions. I would like to ask you, you were in favor of an immigration reform bill in the Senate, and you voted for it. But today, would you vote in favor of a path to legalization for 11 million undocumented people?
SMR:
Well, that can’t be done today for the following reason. I don’t think we can. I have been very clear. I, through that two-year experience, it’s very clear to me. We’re not going to have the votes or the necessary political support in Congress. Today, in some sectors of the American public, in order to move forward on this issue, unless we first prove to the American people that in the future there’s not going to be another
immigration crisis. If we do that, I think that undoubtedly the political support is going to exist to do legalization as you have said. It has to be a process similar to what we advocated in the legislation that I sponsored, and it’s the law that says that, first, the things we’re all familiar with must be present: a background check, pay a fine, begin to pay taxes, get a work permit, and after 10 years, they can apply for their residency. That would be the process, but we can’t get to that point. Politically, the support and the votes in Congress aren’t there until we prove to those members of Congress and the American people that immigration laws are going to be enforced.
JR:
Senator, I want to ask you about Cuba. I know it’s an issue close to your heart, since both your parents are Cuban immigrants. Nonetheless, the majority of Cuban-Americans agree with ending the embargo, and they also agree, according to the polls,with this new approach of President Barack Obama to Cuba. If you reached the White House and were president, would you cut relations with Cuba? And what do you think about President Barack Obama’s calling Raúl Castro “president”?
SMR:
Well, he isn’t a president. He can call himself whatever he likes, but RaúlCastro hasn’t been elected to absolutely anything. He is tyrant and a dictator. In terms of relations with Cuba, right? I would like to have relations with a free, democratic Cuba, or a country that’s making progress toward that. And that doesn’t exist. The Cuban people are the only people in Latin America who haven’t had free elections in more than 50 years. I think that is unfair, and I think the Cuban people deserve that. In my opinion, I say that it’s still a government that supports terrorism. Just today we’ve seen, this week we’ve seen the news that the FARC have again kidnapped and killed 10 people in Colombia. That is a group that receives help and support and shelter from the Cuban government.
JR:
Would you cut relations with Cuba? If you reach the White House, you’ll cut relations?
SMR:
Unless it’s a democratic country or it starts taking concrete steps toward democracy, of course.
JR: Senator, you are the youngest candidate among those who have run or will run, 43 years old. But —
SMR: 44 next month, Jorge.
JR: 44 next month. However, you have certain positions; for example, you’re against same-sex marriage, which is not what most young people believe in, according to the polls. Are you afraid of being portrayed in the media as an old young man, as some people in Latin America say?
SMR:
Well, I don’t believe that’s true. A significant percentage of Americans support my position on marriage between a woman and a man. I understand that there are discrepancies and a change of attitude, and I believe that if people want to change the laws about marriage in a democracy, in a republic, they can do so through their state legislatures. The states have always regulated marriage and can continue to do so. I believe that if the attitude in the country has changed, well, there is a democratic process through which they can make that change. What I don’t support is for the courts to determine this issue because I don’t think it’s up to the courts. I think it’s up to the political branch of each state to decide how it wants to regulate and how to define marriage laws.
JR:
And I’ll finish with a more personal question, Senator. We have had first ladies with very defined personalities: Michelle Obama, for example, or Hillary Clinton.Your wife Jeanette is Colombian-American. What would Jeanette be like as a first lady?
SMR: I think she would be excellent. She has a heart for issues, for example, the trafficking of human beings, which is a crisis today throughout the world. A person who is also interested in children’s issues and education. And also a person who, to me, is a great mother, a great wife, which is also important, right? Because having stability in the family is critical for being able to do the job well as a team. I would also consider her partof that team. But I believe that the country is going to love Jeanette when it gets to know her better.
JR: And that image that came out of you with your four children, to many,even if they were from the other political party, it reminded them of President John F.Kennedy.
SMR: Well, a figure from different times, undoubtedly. Former President Kennedy had a beautiful family as well. It’s more than an honor to know his daughter, who is now the ambassador to Japan. But, again, I believe it is important, that people want to know where you came from, what your family is like. And as we say, “My children are Colom-ban,” which is a combination of Colombian and Cuban, a very good
combination.
JR: Senator, thanks for speaking with us and I hope we can continue this conversation throughout the campaign. Thank you.
I hate Bipartisanship! Part 2 (new video). I have to be brutally honest. I have been a bit bored lately and used the time to translate some clips I found while surfing through channels on Youtube. This one is on pro-amnesty journalist Jorge Ramos’s show, ‘Al Punto’ where Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart appears with community organizer Luis V. Gutierrez to give an update on the push for amnesty. Yes, it is from last year, but if you see this like I do, you won’t be jaded. I promise. It’s always jaw-dropping to feel like a fly on a wall during a sneaky conversation, especially when the conversation reveals how a deal is being cut in DC by representatives. (Where are our hard-hitting news anchors on this issue? And why isn’t there more pressure for them to answer to us, not Ramos?) Diaz-Balart represents many Venezuelans in his district, but amnesty is never a win for Republicans. He is Cuban-American and supposedly anti-communist, just like my two other representatives, so there is no excuse for this. It is shady!
With the help of one or two Congressmen at a time, communist agitator Gutierrez gets what he wants. Seeing him work the host and his colleague is entertaining (at least to me it is), but the reality is that we are, unfortunately, witnessing the GOPe getting very comfortable being out of the shadows on this issue. John Boehner has always been pro-amnesty as Diaz-Balart attests to, but has held it back because of internal issues in our party. Despite our pressure, we lost the latest fight earlier this year on the same day Republicans greeted Netanyahu and won some praise. They allowed the funding of a DHS bill without provisions for stopping DACA or Obama’s Executive Action for two years.
We cannot get tired of calling out Republicans on this. We have to be as pernicious and consistent as our foe, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, shows. Again, it’s been a few slow days news-wise even with the presidential announcements.. kind of a lull, but I hope you enjoy this behind-the- scenes (sort of..) peek proving Boehner’s duplicity we have complained about all along, the embarrassing way some Republicans from the party that Bush has built have fought for this, and the way the extortionists are working them and hurting our country. Please remember that Jeb is scheduled to keynote with Gutierrez at a pro-amnesty Hispanic convention two weeks from today. I just can’t wait. [Yes, I can!]
RNC News Update:
WASHINGTON – The RNC announced that it has sanctioned nine debates from August 2015 through March 1, 2016. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus presented a clear vision for the debate process, including the dates, locations and sponsors.
The nine debates sanctioned between schedule is listed below:
1. Fox News – August 2015 – Ohio
2. CNN – September 2015 – California
3. CNBC – October 2015 – Colorado
4. Fox Business – November 2015 – Wisconsin
5. CNN – December 2015 – Nevada
6. Fox News – January 2016 – Iowa
7. ABC News – February 2016 – New Hampshire
8. CBS News – February 2016 – South Carolina
9. NBC/Telemundo – February 2016 – Florida
PENDING:
Fox News – March 2016 – TBD
CNN – March 2016 – TBD
Conservative Media Debate – Date TBD – Locations TBD
***
Can you guess which networks are pro-amnesty? The fix has been in. It’s time to keep this topic in the forefront of our conversation and the pressure on all representative, especially with all the distractions we shall be experiencing with the presidential hopeful campaigns in 2016.
![sarah-marvelous-eyes-trig[2]](https://thespeechatimeforchoosing.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/sarah-marvelous-eyes-trig2.jpg)
A Time For Choosing 
