MSM is a Secondary Threat, Univision is a Primany Threat
By pagar Posted in Democrats — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For those who think this is not really true: Please read the entire Article.
"
The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story on May10th regarding Univision's campaign to spur millions of Hispanic residents to become U.S. citizens. Univision is, by far, the largest Spanish-language broadcasting network in America. The Journal article pointed out the momentous electoral consequences of this development: since Hispanics tend to vote Democratic an increasingly large number of them with a right to vote will favor the Democratic party in 2008. This is particularly so since so many Spanish-speaking residents are concentrated in states rich in electoral votes. This unprecedented effort on the part of Univision could very likely swing the Presidential election to the Democratic Party."
I doubt if their is an American household where Spanish is the primary language that does not have Univison access. Therefore, the message is getting to every single Spanish Speaking household.
Who controls the message Univision puts out:
"What the Journal missed in its otherwise fine coverage is that a major investor in Univision is Haim Saban, a billionaire who is the largest single donor to the Democratic Party. At one time, Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee said that "Haim Saban saved the Democratic Party." Among his donations: $7 million for the construction of a new Democratic National Committee headquarters building in Washington, D.C., complete with advanced electronic media capabilities."
Every time one sees a MSM item helping the Democrats defeat America, Just remember Univision is getting the same message or worse into the homes of our Spanish speaking residents.
The second assertion — that Spanish-language campaigns are a sell-out to advocates of open borders — is a non sequitur. The ads of Republican 527s could have been so designed. In fact, they were not. In 2002, the Council for Better Government campaigns featured 15 scripts, not one of which dealt with immigration. In 2004, two scripts of 32 aired by the council and Hispanics Together broached the subject, defending the president’s policy. But the overwhelming preponderance of the spots dealt with traditional conservative issues. Scripts advocated traditional marriage, tax breaks for families and small business, school choice, military preparedness, the right to life, personal savings accounts, and faith-based social-service delivery. Given the steeply rising percentage of Hispanics who supported George Bush in the “527 program” states, one may conclude that conservative issues gained considerable traction among them.
The complaint conservatives lodge against open immigration is that it fosters the balkanization of our nation, creating enclaves of “hyphenated Americans” ideologically isolated from our values, but parasitically attached to our pocketbooks. But whether our borders are thrown wide open or slammed tightly shut, it is hard to see how conservatives, by ignoring 7.5 million Hispanic voters, will make them less balkanized, or less liberal.
_____________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
The only thing Univision is good for is Sabado Gigante.
That being said, there are large Hispanic communities that don't like the whole amnesty push, and are, in fact, quite offended by it. Don't assume that Latinos are monolithic on this issue... as conservatives, we don't want to look at them the same way the left views African-Americans and Jews. In fact, if we are able to normalize the border situation and restore some sanity to it, it is entirely possible that, in a generation or two, a majority of Hispanics in the US will be Republicans, a trend that shows up in multi-generation immigrant families (although yes, the first generation tends to be quite progressive, mainly due to seeking out assistance).
And, although one shouldn't be making nationality-based generalizations (especially after my previous paragraph), anybody else note that Haim Saban is Egyptian?
"To all those whom I have not yet offended: Please stand by, and I will work to remedy the situation as soon as possible."
Patiently waiting for a Fred Thompson / John Engler ticket.
enjoy most of their programming, even their news programs, because they're completely unapologetic for hiring the most watchable women on TV.
They also sell lots and lots of advertising time to companies producing English language study programs, so Univision viewers are definitely getting the message that assimilation is in their best interests.
What the problem is in promoting the push for citizenship through legal means. It's not as if you can be here illigally and then suddenly become a citizen overnight.
I understand your concern about them voting Democratic, but I would say that trying to stop people from becoming particpants in the civic sytem would reflect badly on Republicans were they to attempt it.
Anyway, why not set up a competeing, conservative Spanish-laguage chanel to push for citizenship with your preffered message?
Naturalization is both good for the immigrant and good for the country. I doubt that there are many readers of this blog that don't have relatives that were naturalized.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
is; because you are here illegally, because you have no regard for the laws of this country, we're going to reward you for breaking our laws by making you a citizen, all you have to do to earn this citizenship is to get more of you here so that there is no other humane course of action.
"I understand your concern about them voting Democratic, but I would say that trying to stop people from becoming particpants in the civic sytem would reflect badly on Republicans were they to attempt it."
No one is saying legal immigrants should not become citizens.
What is being said is, illegal immigrants nor their families should not be allowed to become naturalized citizens.
The leading financial backer of the Democrat party-- the party
that says if you're willing to break our laws and come here illegally, we're willing to reward you and put you ahead of the rest of the millions of people who want to come here legally--owns the largest Spanish Language TV network. A network that is making sure illegals know that they will be rewarded for breaking our laws if they can just get enough support.
Your suggestion reads that we should start a new network, which would put out a message that lawbreakers should not be
rewarded. My thought is that we have an entire system of government that is set up to enforce our laws, why would we need a new network to explain this.
I have no understanding of a government system where breaking laws is good for the Democrats, but suggesting that laws should not be broken reflects badly on Republicans.
is that the illegal immigrants are not following the rules. My wife and a good many of our friends are naturalized citizens.
Everyone of them have family members, friends etc who have given up on getting into the states legally, because the waits are just far too long. In 1986 a bunch of people who were in the states illegally suddenly got to go the head of the line.
Everyone has been in traffic, when some other driver has rudely cut it front of them. In immigration, it is much worse when millions of illegal immigrants are allowed to cut to the head of the line.
Naturalization of legal immigrants is good.
Naturalization of illegal immigrants is not good. This country is being pushed to allow naturalization of who know how many millions of people that did not come here legally, that is wrong.
Pagar, the WSJ article you refer to says nothing about naturalizing illegal immigrants. It talks about Univision encouraging 8 million green card holders to become full citizens and take advantate of the right to vote. Do you have a problem with this?
Legal immigrants becoming full fledged citizens is the way our immigration system is supposed to work. I support that. Do I believe that there are 8 million people in America that hold legal green cards? I won't argue that figure is wrong, some sources say there are up to 12 million. What the figure mean is that Green Card holders becoming citizens add a big number to the voter rolls. When the illegal numbers are added to the
Green Card holders one is told there is a potential 20 million plus number that could be considered a new voting bloc for the Democrats.
What I have a problem with, and the point the American Thinker
article I linked made, is that there is a leading Spanish TV network in America that is controlled by a leading donor to the Democrat party. A TV channel that most Americans don't pay attention to unless they speak the language.
There is no need to point out that most of the pro immigration rallies are actually pro illegal immigration rally. Most of the sponsors/speakers etc are pointing out how easy it is to get laws changed by casting ballots. We have even had suggestions that everyone can vote. Every time there is an attempt made to make sure that only legal American citizens are allowed to vote, by passing a photo required ID, Democrats
fight it tooth and nail. What reason is always given by the Democrats; the poor, the old, Democrat voters cannot afford the ID, even when it is free. What is the real reason, the Democrats don't want anyone to know who is casting ballots?
Could it be that some who cast ballots are not entitled to cast a ballot?
My reason for posting the initial post is because I do not feel it is right for the Democrat Party to have unlimited access to a TV network while our Party has no access to the same network at the same cost.
There is no doubt in my mind that voters know that Clinton will have every illegal in the country legalized if she is made President. I intend to do every thing I can do legally, to insure she is not made President. The only way to prevent that is make sure that Republicans and Independents get the information they need to vote against her.
letting illegals get in the front of the line when everyone knows that over 80% of them come from one country is a slap in the face and discrimination to all the other races, nations, and ethnicities that would like to immigrate.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The only difference I see between the MSM and Univision is that one of them is in Spanish.
I'm not hispanic, but I did manage to meet a few when I lived in El Paso for about 12 years. Most of them seem to have pretty conservative values. Unfortunately, they vote for Democrats almost unanimously. This has always puzzled me and it still does.
Rep. Sylvester Reyes (D-TX) is pro-abortion. Yet his Roman Catholic voters in El Paso continue to elect him. He's never even challenged within his own party and any Republican that runs against him, well, has no chance. I guess he does bring home the bacon though. I'll never forget a housing project I once saw being built. The sign said it was called a "migrant farm worker housing project" and there wasn't a farm within 20 miles!
Also, look at the major cities in TX. Those that were red are turning blue. Dallas recently had a shocker of an election where almost all the R's were thrown out of office and replaced with D's. Could the tide of immigration have something to do with this? Don't even get me started on the suburb known as Farmer's Branch...
Guest workers will not be citizens, or even have green cards. They would not be able to vote. If the 14 million get "amnesty," thay would be very bad for Republicans.
First, Rs won the majority of Hispanic votes in several swing states in 2004 including FL (56%) and TX (50%).
Second, Rs did better among Spanish-speaking Hispanics than non-spanish speaking Hispanics.
And finally, Rs did much better where they targeted Hispanic votes and reached out for them.
Overall, if Rs stopped fearing Hispanic voters and started trying to win them over, they could probably win a great majority of these generally pro-life, pro-family, pro-work voters.
If you want more details from the 2004 outreach efforts, this National Review article covers it well:
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana