Wednesday Mar 22: Latin America stories with Fausta Rodriguez Wertz…..click to listen.…. https://t.co/95qRfGk1in
— Silvio Canto, Jr. (@SCantojr) March 22, 2017
According to news reports, the city of San Francisco has a message for those companies planning to work on building the US-Mexico border wall.
This is from Fox News:
A San Francisco lawmaker proposed a bill Tuesday that would prohibit the city from doing business with construction companies that seek to work on President Trump’s border wall during the bidding process.
Supervisor Hillary Ronen said doing business with such companies would be out of line with the city’s values, according to KTVU.
“Stick to building bridges, not walls.” Ronen said.
Ronen was joined by Oakland City Councilman Abel Guillen and Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin during a news conference outside the offices of international construction giant T.Y. Lin. The company had previously expressed interest in building the proposed border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
I find this so interesting.
First, President Obama and Secretary Clinton voted for the fence in 2006. It was called “The Secure Fence Act“. It passed the US Senate on a 80-19 vote. The idea was to help secure America’s borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles (1,100 km) of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border.
Second, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton did well in San Francisco. Mrs. Clinton carried California by 28 points, or the reason that she won 3 million more votes than Mr. Trump. Mr. Obama did just as well in 2008 and 2012. I guess that no one cared back them about the fence or anything else.
So San Francisco wants to punish companies now? Shouldn’t they be consistent and declare any one who voted for the fence as “persona non grata”?
After all, it was legislators like Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton who voted to fund it? It happened 10 years before Mr. Trump ran for president!
Where is the intellectual honesty? Or is all of this just more liberal hypocrisy?
Like most of you, I have to make a living and can’t sit in front of the TV watching Supreme Court hearings.
Let me congratulate Judge Gorsuch for having the patience to hear partisan questions from Senator Feinstein and Senator Leahy.
Nevertheless, let me recommend that you go back and try to find Senator Graham’s intervention.
Senator Graham went back and reminded everyone of The Biden Rule of 1992 and its cousin The Schumer Rule of 2008. Those were the days when the Democrats said that no president should ever nominate a candidate to the Supreme Court in an election year.
He also reminded everyone of Senator Reid’s decision to strip the 60-vote rule for judges in 2013.
It was a good lesson for all to watch.
Nate Silver’s new installment on the 2016 election will hopefully get a lot of discussion at journalism schools, and especially media staff meetings.
It is the biggest indictment on everything that is wrong with these newsrooms written in quite some time:
The political diversity of journalists is not very strong, either.
As of 2013, only 7 percent of them identified as Republicans (although only 28 percent called themselves Democrats with the majority saying they were independents).
And although it’s not a perfect approximation — in most newsrooms, the people who issue endorsements are not the same as the ones who do reporting — there’s reason to think that the industry was particularly out of sync with Trump.
Of the major newspapers that endorsed either Clinton or Trump, only 3 percent (2 of 59) endorsed Trump.
By comparison, 46 percent of newspapers to endorse either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney endorsed Romney in 2012.
Furthermore, as the media has become less representative of right-of-center views — and as conservatives have rebelled against the political establishment — there’s been an increasing and perhaps self-reinforcing cleavage between conservative news and opinion outlets such as Breitbart and the rest of the media.
Let me share a couple of personal observations about the election.
Over and over, I would hear that the Trump rallies were full, and often people could not get in. We would hear about people driving around the country and seeing only Trump signs. On the other hand, that was not the case with the Clinton or Kaine rallies. I am not saying this is a total indicator, but it indicates something that most reporters were not picking up.
During the campaign, I took quite a few questions from Spanish media reporters. Every interview would start with a question about how Trump insulted Mexicans at the start of the campaign. I would respond by saying the remarks were bad, indeed, but Hispanics are also concerned about the economy and the cost of health care. Nobody wanted to talk about that in the Spanish media, at least the ones operating outside Miami, where Cubans dominate the audience.
Watching TV, I would see these experts talk about a Clinton landslide – i.e., 400 electoral votes or more. I would ask myself: Who was the last Democrat to do that? The answer is President Johnson in 1964, and he did very well with the white male vote. Hillary Clinton was not doing well with the white male vote!
Over and over again, I felt that the media were disconnected, or just too many reporters telling each other how smart they were.
Nate Silver recommends that journalists “recalibrate themselves to be more skeptical of the consensus of their peers.”
Let me be more blunt than Nate. Journalists need new peers. They need peers who will tell them how stupid it is to say a man has a civil right to go into a woman’s bathroom. Or to immediately play the race or gender card when someone between the coasts criticizes President Obama or Leader Pelosi. Or how silly it sounds that President Obama left a great economy but no one appreciates it.
Want more readers or viewers? Put a different team on the field, one that actually thinks, not just looks, like America!
A few hours ago, we learned that Rachel Maddow was going to release President Trump’s tax returns. Frankly, I thought that she had a bombshell or a leaked version of Mr. Trump’s 2015 or 2016 returns.
It turns out that it was an incomplete 2005 tax return, or just 2 pages of what it is probably a very complex and long statement.
So what else did we learn tonight? We learned that Rachel Maddow is fanatically anti-Trump and that Democrats are really desperate.
Love him or hate him, President Trump is listening a great deal to what the GOP has to say about Obama Care. He will soon start campaigning around the country as well.
This is such a contrast to Obama, a man who loved to hear himself talk but accomplished little when he campaigned on behalf of anything or anybody.
You may recall Obama held scores of town halls to gin up support for his namesake health legislation.
That’s when he made those infamous promises about keeping your doctor, insurance and lowering premiums.
Obama wasn’t big on listening sessions; he preferred talking ones.
He didn’t meet with the GOP’s Senate leadership, for instance, until his 542nd day in office.
The irony is Obama’s party had such firm control of Congress back in 2009 and 2010 that it could ram through the immense bill with not a single Republican vote.
In reaction, the ensuing 2010 midterm elections marked the start of Democrats’ dramatic decline under Obama, costing them both houses and devastating damage at state levels.
Republicans now control 33 governor’s offices and both houses in 25 of those states.
Even as a political rookie, Trump is already aiming to avoid such carnage over the volatile healthcare issue.
Yes, President Trump is a political “rookie” but he is listening. It will pay off as he brings different groups within the GOP together on a replacement to Obama Care.
Jorge Ramos was back in Fox News this week. I guess that Jorge knows where the viewers are.
Frankly, Jorge Ramos looks more and more like an immigration activist rather than a journalist. It may be time for Univision or Fusion to start calling Ramos a “contributor with an opinion” rather than the face of a news network. He looks a lot like a man leading a movement rather than a serious journalist doing news.
Tucker and Jorge went back and forth on the whole issue of illegal immigration.
Ramos then confused the heck out of the audience with his silly “our” vs. “your” country argument.
We all agree that “this land is our land” and welcome the wonderful contributions of legal Mexicans.
Our issue is with illegal immigration but Ramos does not see the difference. I think that this is where Ramos loses credibility with a large audience that does not hate Mexicans or immigrants. Instead, they hate an environment where people, employers for example, are violating the law and not playing fair.
However, it was what he said about Mexico that will likely get a response south of the border.
Tucker brought up Mexico’s immigration laws and Jorge took no prisoners when discussing his native country:
Ramos said his home country is a “terrible example” for human rights in that way, and said America has a responsibility to always do better than the standards Mexico sets.
On this issue, Jorge Ramos is correct. My problem with Ramos is that he spends little time talking about this on Spanish-speaking TV.
We had “a day without immigrants”. It did not change anything except the poor souls who lost their jobs. After all, employers can not afford to be without employees. Employers, unlike march organizers, live in the real world of deadlines and invoices.
Today, we have “a day without women”, an idea based on International Woman’s Day.
We know why “Las damas” march in Cuba. They want freedom and their men released from prison.
What exactly are these women in the US protesting about?
In Virginia, a school district shut down classes today. Why? The answer is that some teachers decided to put political protest over their jobs. Wonder who is explaining that to the working moms who can’t drop off their children at school today?
No specific requests are apparent.
All the organizing material is bathed in vague blather about raising awareness without asking for any specific reforms.
Unlike this month’s “Bodega strike,” in which immigrant businesses closed their doors in objection to Trump’s travel ban, or #GrabYourWallet, which seeks to protest the Trump family’s conflicts of interest, or even January’s “Women’s March on Washington,” which was at least reacting to President Donald Trump’s inauguration and history of sexist comments, “A Day Without A Woman” is a protest without a point.
If women are going to put thousands of children out of school and consider grinding the American economy to a halt, they at least ought to have a good, clear reason to do so.
This is about abortion rights, left wing causes and peddling the lie that men make more money than women, an absolute insane proposition that does not take into consideration the realities of the labor force. See Karin Agness, a woman who blows up this nonsense about pay equity.
At the same time, is anyone protesting for the rights of little girls who will be aborted today? These little girls will never be born or get to participate in any political parade or vote for a woman running for president.
Or what about the women in the Middle East, or the countries that flooded The Clinton Foundation with cash? or the way women are treated in other countries like China?
Will anyone remember the women of Cuba? “Las damas en blanco” are real women under siege by an inhumane regime.
Sadly, today’s marches are about protesting for the sake of protesting, a sad reflection on the corrupt state of feminism in the US.
Our friend Humberto told us about Raul Castro’s recent speech reported by TeleSur. Let me add a few thoughts to Humberto’s post.
Castro unleashed attacks on President Trump, from opposing the US-Mexico border wall, to saying that the new administration plans to violate environmental agreements to benefit large corporations. He closed by expressing his support for leftist regimes in the region and remembering Hugo Chavez on the fourth anniversary of his death.
As mentioned above, he expressed solidarity with Mexico but did not comment on the 91 Cubans recently sent back to the island.
So “que pasa” as Cubans would say? What’s going on? Why is Raul Castro unleashing this attack?
First, Cuba’s economy is hurting badly as was reported at the end of 2016:
Cuba publishes few credible economic statistics, but experts expect the country to end this year with gross domestic product growth of 1 percent or less.
It maintained a rate close to 3 percent from 2011-2015.
One bright spot is tourism, booming since Obama and Castro’s Dec. 17, 2014, detente announcement set off a surge in overall visitor numbers, up more than 15 percent in 2015 and again this year.
“I’ve never seen as many tourists as I have this year,” said Magalys Pupo, a street-corner pastry vendor in Old Havana. “They’re everywhere and they’re the income that we need in this country.”
The slowness of macroeconomic growth despite a surge of interest in foreign investment and the greatest tourism boom in decades attests to both long-term mismanagement of the Cuban economy and the depth of the crisis in other sectors, particularly aid from Venezuelan in the form of deeply subsidized oil.
Analysts believe that as Venezuela’s Cuba-inspired socialist economy has disintegrated, exports to Cuba has dropped from 115,000 barrels daily in 2008 to 90,000 in recent years to 40,000 a day over the last few months.
Second, it does appear that the Trump administration is going to take a second look at the U.S.-Cuba deal.
President Trump has reasons to review the situation:
a) The Cuban vote in Florida got him the 27 electoral votes; and,
b) What exactly has the U.S. gotten out of this deal? Not much.
So I think that Raul Castro is starting to get the message that US elections have consequences. In 2012, Obama’s reelection allowed talks to go on. In 2016, the consequences are different.
And frankly there are lots of us Cuban Americans in the U.S. who are happy that a change in coming.
Over the last week 45 days, “anonymous” has become the word of the moment.
Over and over, we’ve read that an anonymous source said this or that a senior official reported that.
I did not know that we had that many senior officials in Washington DC. We could start downsizing government by releasing all of those senior officials who spend their time secretly talking to reporters rather than working!
To be fair, “anonymous sources” are essential to expose corruption in high places. On the other hand, they are not a good source to promote a political agenda or to give those who lost the election an opportunity to embarrass those who won.
Based on “anonymous” sources, we learned about a Russia-Trump connection that no one can prove. We also learned over the weekend that Director Comey recommended to the DOJ not to take President Trump’s wiretapping charges seriously.
It’s enough to drive an honest person mad. For example, why doesn’t Director Comey come out and confirm the news story? Otherwise, is it too much for me to conclude that this is another hit piece against President Trump?
All of this leads us to the point where the public is tired of all of these mindless and “anonymous” news stories. In fact, the latest IBD/TIPP poll:
…….found that 55% of the public says they’ve grown “weary from the media’s persistently negative coverage of President Trump.” A roughly equal share (54%) also believe that the news media “has assumed the role of the opposition party, constantly opposing the president and his policies at every turn.”
We are watching some of the most partisan and the ugliest politics in some time. You know that things are bad when a good man like Attorney General Sessions is accused of perjury for answering a question from the pompous Senator Franken.
We understand the Democrats’ game. They are trying to keep the fundraising going and maintain peace with an angry left that wants scalps rather than legislation.
It would be better to treat the Democrats like adults and listen to their reasoned comments. However, there is nothing reasoned about their approach. It’s time to fight back!
For our readers who don’t remember, Vicente Fox was the man who broke the PRI’s one party 60-plus years domination of Mexico’s politics. He won the presidency as PAN’s nominee in 2000. For the record, I supported him and had high hopes for his presidency.
Today, Vicente Fox is a former president looking for a little fame and fortune in all the wrong places. He has appointed himself as Mexico’s “Anti-Trumpista”.
A “so-called” President is calling a real President and true leader: bad and sick guy. What a shame, America you need to do something now!
.@realDonaldTrump is more aware of what happens in reality TV than his own country. He’s a very bad apprentice of politics!
Mr. Trump needs to go back to retirement and stop this needless intervention in US politics for two reasons:
- Nobody cares what he has to say, here and specially down in Mexico;
- Why is a former president of Mexico sticking his nose in US politics? Wonder how Mexicans would react if a former US president spoke about domestic matters south of the border?
Move on Vicente. You had your time and nobody wants to see you on the stage any longer.
We remember today that President and Mrs Reagan were married on this day in 1952:
“On this day in 1952, actor and future President Ronald Reagan marries his second wife, actress Nancy Davis. The couple wed in Los Angeles at the Little Brown Church in the Valley.”
Reagan was elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984. Nancy was a popular First Lady and strong partner. And they were always great friends of freedom loving Cubans.