About Me

Name: Silvio Canto, Jr.
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

Giulianii beats Clinton in New York

 
According to news reports, Senator Hillary Clinton has a lot of cash and is ready to run for president.

Has she consulted with New Yorkers? According to the latest Marist Poll:

"Most New Yorkers don't think Sen. Hillary Clinton should run for president and a majority think she would lose - and if Rudy Giuliani ran against her, New York would become a red state, according to a new poll." (http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/)

This is not a very good poll for Senator Clinton:

"In a hypothetical Clinton-Giuliani matchup, New Yorkers would hand the state's crucial 31 electoral votes to the former mayor by a 52 percent-43 percent margin.....

New Yorkers are split over whether Giuliani should run - and 53 percent don't think he can win.

Forty-six percent of New York voters think Clinton should run, but 64 percent say she won't win - including 54 percent of Democrats."

So why isn't Guliani running for the US Senate in New York?

Let me suggest this to Guliani. Run in New York and knock off Hillary Clinton and you will be the darling of the Republican Convention in 2008.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mexico, Detroit and globalization

 
Do you know where they manufacture 2 million vehicles? Do you know where you can find a job making cars?

The answer is not Detroit, Michigan. The answer is south of the border:

"The expansion, being fueled by Mexico’s top five automakers — General Motors, Ford Motor, DaimlerChrysler, Nissan and Volkswagen — stands in contrast to the plans by G.M. and Ford to cut 60,000 jobs in the United States and close two dozen North American plants through 2012.
The reason for Mexico’s new wave of growth is twofold.

First, it is next to the world’s largest auto market, allowing greater production integration because auto companies can easily ship cars and parts by truck and rail.

And second, it is still cheap to operate here compared with the United States, where unionized workers earn at least $27 an hour and benefits can double or even triple the total cost.

By comparison, Mexico’s typical auto industry wage of about $3.50 an hour for an experienced worker — which doubles with benefits — looks like a bargain." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/business/worldbusiness/21auto.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

What about the future:

"New investments could raise Mexico’s production to three million cars by 2012, depending on growth in the United States, Mexico’s main market, according to Emilio Mosso, an official at the Economy Ministry.

In part, the boom is a rebound after sales slumped for aging models made in Mexico, and automakers halted production to prepare for new models.

Exports are up 50 percent in the first six months of the year from the same period last year.

About three-quarters of production goes abroad, mostly to the United States. And analysts say that figure could rise.

“When companies look at where to put a new plant, Mexico is starting to compete a lot more with Detroit South,” said Gabriel Renero, a consultant at Deloitte in Mexico City.

“They are finding a very attractive work force in this country.”

Democrats will jump on these figures to beat up NAFTA and free trade.

NAFTA is not the problem. Our challenge is that we are in a new world economy!

Don't believe it? Read Thomas Friedman's "The world is flat":

"What Friedman means by "flat" is "connected": the lowering of trade and political barriers and the exponential technical advances of the digital revolution have made it possible to do business, or almost anything else, instantaneously with billions of other people across the planet. --Tom Nissley "(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374292884/103-4878818-9789449?v=glance&n=283155)

Still don't believe it? Check out this video from a lecture at MIT World. (http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/266/)


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pres. Bush and the NAACP

 
In 2000, candidate George W. Bush spoke before the NAACP. Bush came to the NAACP with a positive message. He was governor of the 2nd largest state in the union. In 1998, he was reelected with 69% of the vote because he was seen as a governor that got things done. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/TX/G/)

Beyond the numbers, he did very well with minorities:

"Bush made strong inroads within typically reliable Democratic groups, including 21 percent of the vote among African-Americans." (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/03/election/governors/texas/)

Bush's 2000 speech went over well. In fact, it went over so well that the NAACP shifted into panic mode. They created a TV ad about the death of James Byrd, a black man killed in East Texas. It was despicable and dishonest. It was intended to paint Bush as a racist:

"In October 2000, a project of the NAACP National Voter Fund nationally aired a television ad that accused Bush, then governor of Texas, of being unsympathetic to James Byrd, a black Texas man who was dragged to death by three white men in a pickup truck in 1998. It seems to me that, by distributing that ad, the NAACP very knowingly set the tone for its relationship with the Bush administration." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/07/19/jnelson.DTL)

Why did the NAACP panic? Because the modern NAACP is a subsidiary of the Democrat Party. Years ago, the NAACP was a civil rights organization. Today, their main mission is to lie about Republicans and to keep the Democrats' monopoly on the black vote at any cost.

The Democrats understand the importance of the black vote. Give any Republican presidential candidate 15% of the black vote and the election is over at 9pm central time.

Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004, up from 9% in 2000. Again, give Bush 15% and he'd won Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.

Nevertheless, I am glad that Pres. Bush went to the NAACP convention a few days ago. He listed some of the advances made by the new black middle class. At the same time, the NAACP needs to get real because they are not in tune with what is happening in black America.

The Republicans have a better plan for blacks. It is called personal responsibility and family values. It includes school vouchers. It rejects abortion and same sex marriage.

P.S. I feel confident about Republicans and blacks! (http://www.theblackgop.com/) There are several top black candidates in 2006:

Michael Steele for U.S. Senate: Maryland

Lynn Swann for Governor: Pennsylvania

Keith Butler for U.S. Senate: Michigan

Ken Blackwell for Governor: Ohio

Dr. Ada Fisher for U.S. House: North Carolina

Sherman Parker for U.S. House: Missouri

One, or a couple of them, will make history in 2006. My money is on Lynn Swann.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who does Israel negotiate a cease fire with?

 
We keep hearing about a cease fire. However, a cease fire is an agreement between two parties who come to the table in good faith.

Can we trust Hezbollah to abide by any agreement? They haven't before.

This is the bottom line: You can not do business with terrorists!

Let's fact the facts. To a terrorist, a cease fire is an opportunity to regroup and comeback for more killing.

UN Ambassador Bolton nailed this issue at a press conference. Click on the URL below to watch the video:http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?072006/072006_ds_boltonpresser&Frustrating%20Efforts%3F&DaySide&Amb.%20John%20Bolton%20on%20Syria%27s%20role%20in%20Mideast%20turmoil&World&-1&Frustrating%20Efforts%3F&Video%20Launch%20Page)

Steve Huntley is editor of the Sun-Times editorial page. Yesterday, he wrote this:

"Give peace a chance is the underlying message in the calls for a cease-fire. Well, Israel gave peace a chance, and it got war. It withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and got a Hezbollah terrorist state within the state of Lebanon firing missiles at towns in Israel. The Israelis pulled out of Gaza last year and got a Hamastan in the proto-state of Palestine shooting rockets at Israeli civilians." (http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-hunt20.html)

That's exactly right. Israel gave peace a chance and it got war!

P.S. Speaking of Europe, I think that Spain's PM JL Rodriguez-Zapatero is a joke. Check out this article and his wardrobe, such as wearing a Palestinian kaffiyah. What's next for Jews in Spain and parts of Europe:

"If the United States does not want to see the American embassy in Madrid full of Jews fleeing Spain, President Bush will do well in isolating Spain in the international arena while pressing, and asking European members to press, the new Socialist government of Spain." (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278919,00.html)



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How can we blame Israel for defending itself?

 
Lebanon is in the middle of this war. I understand that.

In a perfect world, Israel and Hezbollah would not fight in Lebanon.

In a perfect world, Hezbollah would not hide its missiles in Beirut apartment buildings.

However, Hezbollah is shooting missiles from Lebanese territory and hiding its military hardware in residential areas. What is Israel supposed to do?

How would the US react if hundreds of missiles were landing in Texas or Florida?

Do the math. The US population is 300 million. Israel has 7 million.

100 dead in Israel is equal to thousands in the US.

Would we show restraint? No way!

Let me say it again. Israel does not have easy choices. The Middle East is always about bad choices.

World War II was about bad choices, too. Pres. Truman had to choose between dropping two atomic bombs on Japan or losing thousands of American GIs in an invasion.

Life is not fair or pretty.

Life is not going to get fairer or prettier as we fight this messy war against Islamic fanatics. This is going to get ugly and uglier. We are in a nasty war!

Indeed, let's help Lebanon. We need a multinational force to enforce Resolution 1559. I don't want another Kosovo, where the US did all of the heavy lifting. I want a multinational force made up of many nations. We could start with NATO and invite others.

As a matter of fact, most countries do not have the military resources to participate. However, they could contribute doctors, nurses, policemen and engineers.

Am I optimistic? No. Why not?

The world is good at talking. It is not good at solving problems. It prefers to sit back and let the US clean up the mess.

Many European countries have large Islamic populations. For example, how would all of those young men outside Paris react to Chirac sending French soldiers to fight Hezbollah? They burned 1,000 cars last year. How many would they burn now? Would they burn Paris?

What about all of those cells all over Europe? Have we forgotten what happened to a Danish newspaper that published Mohammed cartoons?

The bottom line is that most European leaders are scared to death of their Islamic populations. This is why they play the anti-Israel card.

So we are back to square one.

The world won't fight Hezbollah. How can we blame Israel for defending itself?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cuba after the funeral

 
Castro will be 80 next month. He has been in power since 1959. What happens next?

Check out "Cuba, the corpse and Paradise" By CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER:

"Once Castro is dead and the transition begins, there will be a unique opportunity to bring about ''the Cuban miracle'': to turn a country of slaves subjugated by communist dogma and impoverished by collectivism into a prosperous and industrious nation of property owners installed among the world's richest nations, as happened to Ireland, Taiwan and Singapore, other small islands.

That transformation -- based on the enormous human capital in the country an with the aid of the United States, European investments and the intense collaboration of the Cuban diaspora -- can be accomplished within one generation and at a two-digit sustained pace of annual growth.

That's just as it happened in Cuba in the 1940s and part of the 1950s.

To reach that paradise, of course, one must first attend a long-awaited funeral."
(http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/15061331.htm)

Montaner is right. Cuba will have a transformation to prosperity:

1) There are 2 million Cubans and their children in the US. We will invest our money and energies in Cuba's future.

2) The US will support Cuba. You can count on a huge economic assistance plan.

3) Cuba's incredible natural beauty will attract millions of tourists.

4) Cubans are an entrepreneurial people. We have demonstrated that in the US.

Before Castro, Cuba was on top of Latin America in every socio-economic standard, including health care and literacy.

Castro did not bring free medicine to the Cuban people. (http://www.therealcuba.com/Health%20Services%20in%20Cuba%20B.C..htm)

Castro did not bring literacy to Cuba. (http://www.therealcuba.com/FreeEducation.htm)

Castro did bring political prisons, hospitals without supplies and a restricted list of books to read!

Frankly, I am very optimist about Cuba's future. My generation has a duty to help Cuba. Based on my conversations, I think that most of us who came to the US as children will do our part when the bell rings.

Here it goes.

Cuba will be the Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea of Latin America. It will bring great satisfaction to my parents' generation, the ones who stood up to communism and served prison sentences. They were the ones betrayed by Castro and who paved the way for their children's success in the US.

Of course, Castro has to die naturally or by some other means.

Where is that French soccer player when we really need him? (http://cantotalk.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-killed-fidel-movie.html)



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lopez-Obrador sinks to a new low

 
Mexico's Sr. AMLO is floating the idea that he is the victim of a huge fraud.

In the US, we send people like that to a psychiatrist. Sometimes, they appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show. I think that it's time for Sr. LO to visit Oprah, cry on her shoulder and blame everyone for his electoral misfortunes.

Maybe Sr. LO will tell Oprah that senior citizens in Oaxaca and Chiapas meant to vote for him but voted for Calderon.

On a serious note, Sr. LO's case is not very persuasive.

First, every precinct was staffed by a representative from the parties. I spoke with a couple of people who worked that day. I have read reports from the international press, which were full of praise for IFE.

Second, every envelope (with results enclosed) was certified by the parties present.

Question for Sr. LO: Were PRD representatives sleeping on the job? Did they all go out for "tacos" during the certification exercise?

So what really happened on July 2nd? Calderon got 200,000 more votes!

It's time for Sr. LO to pursue another career, specially one that takes him very far from Mexico. Frankly, many of us are tired of his silly act!


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran is the problem

 
Mohammed Fadhil, along with his brother Omar, manage Iraq the Model, a blog based in Baghdad. Today, they published a wonderful op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal entitled "No More Half-Solutions: Iran is the cause of chaos in Lebanon and Iraq":

"The hesitation of the international community can be so dangerous and the intentions of the axis of terror are so clear. That's why firm and resolute measures have to be undertaken against Syria and Iran who are directly responsible for the mess in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine."
(http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008667)

That's right.

This is a wonderful opportunity to deal with Iran. They are the source of every problem in the region. Iran is interfering in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

The facts are clear. There won't peace in the region until Iran is disarmed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Res. 1559: Another worthless UN resolution

 
A couple years ago, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1559. It gave:

"its support for a free and fair presidential election in Lebanon conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence and, in that connection, called upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon." (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8181.doc.htm)

The "diplomacy always" crowd cheered and toasted the historic moment. New York restaurants probably sold a lot of champagne and expensive wine as "UN types" told each other how great and relevant they are.

Back in Lebanon, the terrorists laughed at Resolution 1559. Why? Because Hezbollah knew that no one would enforce it and consequently nothing would happen.

Such is the fate of so many UN Resolutions. Nothing happens!

We saw the same thing with Iraq. Resolution after resolution called on Saddam to disarm and respect the cease fire. Saddam mocked the UN time after time.

Why? Because terrorists and bullies see resolutions as a sign of our weakness rather than our strength. Terrorists see resolutions as a sign that we do not want to fight and would rather talk.

In the case of Iraq, Pres. Bush and PM Blair had the courage to enforce a resolution and Saddam is now sitting in jail. In the case of Lebanon, no one had the courage to enforce it so Hezbollah is firing missiles at Israel.

So what happens now?

Israel should finish what they started. After that, we should call on the world to "put up or shut up" and enforce Res. 1559.

First, we need a multinational force with the authority to clean out Hezbollah. In other words, they are not peacekeepers. They are soldiers.

Second, the US should advise Syria that we will annihilate them if they stick their fingers in Lebanon.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gingrich's remarks

 

Newt Gingrich is a historian, and a very good one. He sees the big picture better than most politicians or analysts.

Over the weekend, Gingrich caused a lot of conversation by saying that we are in World War III. Gingrich was mocked by some and defended by others.

Overall, I think that Newt is on the right track. I don't care what we call it but we are in the early stages of a war for our way of life.

So we can call it WW III or WW whatever. It is a war.

It is also a completely different war. We are not fighting an enemy wearing uniforms or operating under rules of warfare. What we are fighting is the first of the post 9-11 wars.

Gingrich said this:

"The nature of the threat -- with Iran at the epicenter -- is at its core ideological. The threat to the United States is an ideological wing of Islam that is irreconcilable to modern civilization as we know it throughout most of the world. The United States and her allies face a long war with this irreconcilable wing of Islam.

We must convince the American people and our allies across the world that fighting this fight is hard but necessary and unavoidable. Losing to the murderous terrorists and their state sponsors who threaten us would be far harder." (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/winningthefuture.php?id=16065)

In simple terms, losing this war is not an option.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I feel better after hearing Pres. Bush

 
So the President used a four letter word:

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this (expletive) and it's over,"...." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203941,00.html)

By today's standards, it was a rather lame four letter word.

So Mom Bush should call her George W and say:

First, Son, I do not want you use that language in public;

Second, go ahead and take out that SOB Iran!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cities and states are getting into the immigration game

 
On another front, states and cities are starting to act on immigration. Conor Friedersdorf writes about immigration issues. You can check his blog (www.beyondbordersblog.com):

"At least 30 states have passed in excess of 57 laws, according to a USA Today analysis" (http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4039405)

Colorado just passed a new law requiring legal residency for state benefits.

Why is this happening? The answer is that local governments are stuck with the cost of schools, health care and crime.

At the national level, immigration is about controlling the border. At city hall, or county level, it is a question of costs.

For example, check this:

"Dallas County is planning to bill Mexico and other countries for treating their indigent citizens at Parkland Memorial Hospital, a practice that county leaders say is becoming a drain on their resources. County Judge Margaret Keliher said she doesn't expect the foreign countries to pay up, just as she doesn't expect neighboring counties to pay for treating their indigent residents.

But that's not the point, she said.

"If you're not Dallas County residents, then we think that where you're from should pay for indigent health care," she said."(http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-parkland_22met.ART0.West.Edition1.21f4982.html)

Will it work? Probably not. Yet, the point is made. US cities can not continue to provide these services for illegal immigrants.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain-Romney in 2008!

 
Speaking of polls, Rasmussen released a shocker.  McCain is leading Hillary Clinton and Al Gore (44-43%) in very blue Massachusetts. (http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/maPresidential2008.htm)

In the end, I believe that a Democrat will carry Massachusetts in 2008. However, by how much? And, how much will McCain force Democrats to defend states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Let's not forget that Gore and Kerry barely won Minnesota and Wisconsin, a couple of high tax states that are trending Republican. Michigan's Gov. Granholm is in deep trouble because her state cannot attract business or create jobs.

This is why I continue to propose a McCain-Romney ticket.

McCain brings credibility on national security, the Republicans' strength. He also connects with independents.

Romney brings the cultural values because of his opposition to abortion and same sex marriage. He is also a very well spoken man who looks very presidential.

McCain-Romney would be a winning ticket in 2008. They will carry every one of the 30 states carried by Bush plus Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey and compete in Massachusetts.

I don't see a single Democrat that can stand up to McCain-Romney!


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's time to cut the snake's head off!

 
Winston Churchill had the best line of the 1930s:

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".

Churchill spent most of the 1930s warning everyone about Hitler. No one listened and 60 million died including 6 million Jews in concentration camps.

In the summer of 1939, most of the serious people of the world understood that Hitler and Japan had to be stopped. Yet, no one was willing to do it. It all became academic when Hitler marched into Poland in September '39 and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Today, we are at war with Islam fanatics, an extreme wing committed to the destruction of everyone who disagrees with them. You can't negotiate with them. They don't wear uniforms or fight for a country. They hide among civilians so that Israel or the US are forced to bomb residential areas.

Will we stop them?

William Kristol wrote a good summary of the threat:

"Here, however, is one lesson that does seem to hold: States matter. Regimes matter. Ideological movements become more dangerous when they become governing regimes of major nations. Communism became really dangerous when it seized control of Russia. National socialism became really dangerous when it seized control of Germany. Islamism became really dangerous when it seized control of Iran--which then became, as it has been for the last 27 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran."
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/433fwbvs.asp)

I see this conflict moving beyond Beirut and into Damascus and Tehran. It won't be pretty but we need to go to the source in Iran and cut the snake's head off!


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who is Hezbollah?

 
At the end of the day, Israel is fighting an enemy of the West named Hezbollah.

Who is this organization:

"Americans should be familiar with Hezbollah. In April 1983, Hezbollah terrorists, operating from Syrian-controlled territory, bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 49 and wounding 120.

Six months later, Hezbollah terrorists drove two trucks carrying explosives into the U.S. Marine and French military barracks near Beirut, killing 241 American and 56 French soldiers.

Lebanon should have disarmed Hezbollah in accordance with U.N. Resolution 1559, a 2004 measure that called on all Lebanese militias to disband.

But the West, and especially Europe, could have done more to help.

Hezbollah has been used by Iran and Syria to funnel money to finance Palestinian terror against Israel. Terrorist wannabes train in Hezbollah's camps in the Bekaa Valley, with trainees coming from al-Qaida, Chechnya, Colombia's Medellin drug cartel, Hamas, Japan, the Balkans and Northern Ireland.

Hezbollah is an Iranian creation supported financially and militarily by Tehran. When not waving Lebanese flags for a gullible Western media, Hezbollah sports a yellow and green flag depicting a fist brandishing a Kalashnikov rifle, posed against a globe and advocating "an Islamic Revolution in Lebanon."(
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060714)

Today, Pres. Bush made it clear that Hezbollah is the problem not Israel.

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are terrorists. I'm glad to see that Pres. Bush is pointing the finger in their direction.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive